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

[blueMA]

After an experience with a CBI, this post shows she's going back to GIA.
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...my-expensive-ags-diamond.246561/#post-4489994

Also, size difference makes a BIG difference when it comes to diamond performance, so pursuing a well cut GIA stone is worth the bother as to getting limited to a much smaller sized superideal per budget.

 

[Dmndsr4evr11]

I just want to chime in and say that I am with @aneesh120 in that I would love to see more comparisons of Super Ideals vs. non-Super Ideals with near super ideal specs. Most of the comparisons I've found that actually reveal the diamond specs (most don't) show Super Ideals vs. GIA diamonds with specs at the very low end of ExExEx rather than diamonds with near super ideal specs. My e-ring is a GIA ExExEx with near super ideal specs and I cannot see much if any discernible difference between it and a Super Ideal. And if the differences are so minimal that they can only be detected in scope images, it is not worth the 20-25% premium for a Super Ideal for me personally. I would not go so far as to imply that Super Ideals are a "scam" and that there is no difference, I am just saying I cannot detect it IRL and so the premium is not worth it to me. I've also had two very reputable local jewelers (one both AGS and GIA credentialed) praise my diamond without prompting. However, truth be told, even with comparison videos and scopes, the real test is with ones own eyes. People have different tolerance levels and different preferences in performance.

I have to say that I own a non -ideal, non-certified, well cut diamond (I believe)that’s my original e-ring. Need to check if there’s even specs on the jeweler’s certificate. I’ve also owned WF premium select that I traded up for expert selection and that I’ve traded up again for an ACA. The premium select and expert selection stones I had were beautiful and bright and sparkly that people have commented on my stones many times; however, my ACA stone definitely has more fire and brilliance to my eyes. It’s not being “brainwashed” but I’ve owned and still own non ACA diamonds and I can definitely see a difference.

 

[blueMA]

I have to say that I own a non -ideal, non-certified, well cut diamond (I believe)that’s my original e-ring. Need to check if there’s even specs on the jeweler’s certificate. I’ve also owned WF premium select that I traded up for expert selection and that I’ve traded up again for an ACA. The premium select and expert selection stones I had were beautiful and bright and sparkly that people have commented on my stones many times; however, my ACA stone definitely has more fire and brilliance to my eyes. It’s not being “brainwashed” but I’ve owned and still own non ACA diamonds and I can definitely see a difference.

No doubt it's very easy to differentiate a superideal with a random GIA 3X - too many of those are steep/deep and with pavilion twists and lgh variations along with not so great optical symmetry, resulting in poor virtual facets alignment and performance.

However, this does not mean that all GIA 3X are to be denigrated because many great stones are out there. In fact, many better stones are becoming available nowadays due to the computer aided laser cutting, and I see major progress especially in the CZ/moissanite cuttings (perfect H&A!) compared to mined diamonds where weight salvaging for profit game is still affecting better availability.

 

[Titan7]

Super ideal fans brainwashed? LMAO. I would dare to say the only person who could not see the difference between a WF ACA and other Super ideal cuts compared to the avg. well cut stone is either blind or in denial. Sure there are probably some non-super ideal cuts that perform “close” to the super ideals on the market somewhere. Good luck with your search, and remember, some folks say every once in a while a blind squirrel finds a nut too.

Sorry if some find this post too blunt, but this is a true no brainer, not a brainwashed situation IMO.

 

[tigertales]

I don't think it's a question of "either/or". A well cut stone is a well cut stone, regardless of the various parameters, which have changed and evolved over time. My OMC does laps around my Ideal cuts, but they're all beautiful in different ways.

 

[Dmndsr4evr11]

No doubt it's very easy to differentiate a superideal with a random GIA 3X - too many of those are steep/deep and with pavilion twists and lgh variations along with not so great optical symmetry, resulting in poor virtual facets alignment and performance.

However, this does not mean that all GIA 3X are to be denigrated because many great stones are out there. In fact, many better stones are becoming available nowadays due to the computer aided laser cutting, and I see major progress especially in the CZ/moissanite cuttings (perfect H&A!) compared to mined diamonds where weight salvaging for profit game is still affecting better availability.

Very true, @blueMA. There are definitely non-superideals that are great stones. Just need to diligent at finding those stones. It’s in the eye of the beholder regardless if it’s superideal, ideal, or non-ideal. To each her/his own. Buy what you like and what you can afford .

 

[blueMA]

I would dare to say the only person who could not see the difference between a WF ACA and other Super ideal cuts compared to the avg. well cut stone is either blind or in denial.

I assume that you simply haven't seen a nice non super ideals. Superideal stones are simply branded H&A stones (Japan initiated the marketing) within tight range of parameters. There are many stones that don't cut the strict criteria by a very slim margin, and I guarantee you that you won't be able to tell the difference naked eye as long as the proportions are similar. This is why Whiteflash's Premium Select line can be an awesome bargain; there had been a few posters who were in fact more pleased with a PS performance over ACA. It's similar to you not being able to differentiate VVS1 vs VS1. That GIA stone posted earlier is no doubt an H&A, and any vendor would be proud to offer that stone.

For an example, checkout this post where @uyalison could not pick out a CBI amongst 5 other diamonds. Yes she could differentiate through a scope, but not through the naked eye, and I assutr you that she's not blind.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...between-wf-and-cbi.239329/page-3#post-4315090

 

[LightBright]

After an experience with a CBI, this post shows she's going back to GIA.
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...my-expensive-ags-diamond.246561/#post-4489994

Also, size difference makes a BIG difference when it comes to diamond performance, so pursuing a well cut GIA stone is worth the bother as to getting limited to a much smaller sized superideal per budget.

The referenced poster was disappointed that her AGS certified SuperIdeal was a color grade lower when certified by GIA. In the end she preferred her GIA stone for all of To me, the color inflation that seems to happen sometimes with AGS certification is a big deal because color costs. I don’t mind paying a premium for premium cuts, but I don’t want to pay for high color unless it meets GIA standards. This is something the OP should watch out for. Make sure that AGS H isn’t a GIA I. The two different cuts OP is looking at will mask the color to a degree, but careful attention should be paid to understanding exactly what the OP sees and wants.

 

[Kaycee2018]

I would dare to say the only person who could not see the difference between a WF ACA and other Super ideal cuts compared to the avg. well cut stone is either blind or in denial.

Wow. So are those who cannot detect a discernible difference between a G color diamond and an I color diamond, or not enough of a difference to pay the premium for a G, also blind or in denial?

 

[LightBright]

I assume that you simply haven't seen a nice non super ideals. Superideal stones are simply branded H&A stones (Japan initiated the marketing) within tight range of parameters. There are many stones that don't cut the strict criteria by a very slim margin, and I guarantee you that you won't be able to tell the difference naked eye as long as the proportions are similar. This is why Whiteflash's Premium Select line can be an awesome bargain; there had been a few posters who were in fact more pleased with a PS performance over ACA. It's similar to you not being able to differentiate VVS1 vs VS1. That GIA stone posted earlier is no doubt an H&A, and any vendor would be proud to offer that stone.

For an example, checkout this post where @uyalison could not pick out a CBI amongst 5 other diamonds. Yes she could differentiate through a scope, but not through the naked eye, and I assutr you that she's not blind.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...between-wf-and-cbi.239329/page-3#post-4315090

Regarding all of BlueMA’s points here. I agree. Appealing cut is something that isn’t necessarily only found in SuperIdeals. I can pick CBIs out of a line up, because I’ve got one and memorized its characteristics long enough. (I can even see that some CBIs perform slightly better than others.) That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t find a GIA cut more appealing. I just haven’t seen enough diamonds in my life to even know what I prefer. If the OP has a chance to see stones in person, that’s great and should be very helpful. OP maybe you should ask the jeweler to see a few more GIA XXXs, maybe with similar cut characteristics of the ACA you are looking at, while you are there. I wish I could have that opportunity as I would find it very educational. (I wish PS could offer more educational cut comparisons during meet-ups!)

 

[blueMA]

The referenced poster was disappointed that her AGS certified SuperIdeal was a color grade lower when certified by GIA. To me, the color inflation that seems to happen with AGS certification is a big deal because color costs. I don’t mind paying a premium for premium cuts, but I don’t want to pay for high color unless it meets GIA standards. This is something the OP should watch out for. Make sure that AGS H isn’t a GIA I. The two different cuts OP is looking at will mask the color to a degree, but careful attention should be paid to understanding exactly what the OP sees and wants.

Yes, I'd gather that's a huge downer knowing that you've paid the high premium. She actually has a nice much larger GIA 3X that she compared to, and the fact that she changed her mind several months after the initial enthusiasm wore off tells a volume.
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-52-h-si1-cbi-review-and-lots-of-pics.243371/

 

[blueMA]

I wish I could have that opportunity as I would find it very educational.

Go to your local Hearts On Fire (H&A stones), Tiffany's, or even Hertzberg Diamonds (carry both GIA and AGS), along with many jewelry stores (most of these carry terrible duds). The more you see, more you learn. ; )

 

[tigertales]

When I first got a little pair of super ideals for some earrings, I was really disappointed...not because they didn't sparkle or weren't perfect...they did and they were. But here's the thing, I personally don't like the super precise cut ( OH horrors!). The perfect, perfect symmetry looks like they were cut by a robot. The arrows make a dark spikey pattern looking down through the table, and the table is so small it looks like a little circle.
Also, to get the perfect specs, the polisher has to cut away a good deal of the body of the diamond. ( Then of , course this allows them the luxury of cutting away imperfections, and the chances of marking up the price because now it's a VS 1 or something. In fact it probably had carbon mess all over it prior. It's deceptive). I like 60/60 because I feel like I've got a diamond with more of its original "body". I'm a rock hound originally, so I prefer having the feeling I've got a cool ROCK, even with its quirky, but natural and from the earth, imperfections.
'All face and no base' is how I refer to some diamonds that look like they've been cut to high heaven in order to catch the light a certain way.
In fact, the real secret to a diamond's beauty is the grain, and that's a matter of nature and chance. Cut can maximize that of course, but in the end, you have to judge a diamond by eye.

 

[MissGotRocks]

When I first got a little pair of super ideals for some earrings, I was really disappointed...not because they didn't sparkle or weren't perfect...they did and they were. But here's the thing, I personally don't like the super precise cut ( OH horrors!). The perfect, perfect symmetry looks like they were cut by a robot. The arrows make a dark spikey pattern looking down through the table, and the table is so small it looks like a little circle.
Also, to get the perfect specs, the polisher has to cut away a good deal of the body of the diamond. ( Then of , course this allows them the luxury of cutting away imperfections, and the chances of marking up the price because now it's a VS 1 or something. In fact it probably had carbon mess all over it prior. It's deceptive). I like 60/60 because I feel like I've got a diamond with more of its original "body". I'm a rock hound originally, so I prefer having the feeling I've got a cool ROCK, even with its quirky, but natural and from the earth, imperfections.
'All face and no base' is how I refer to some diamonds that look like they've been cut to high heaven in order to catch the light a certain way.
In fact, the real secret to a diamond's beauty is the grain, and that's a matter of nature and chance. Cut can maximize that of course, but in the end, you have to judge a diamond by eye.

That is the craziest thing I've ever heard! True that more rough is lost in cutting an ideal cut stone but your description sounds like they are hacking it all up. Precision is never derived from that type of cutting.

We all like different things and flavors and I am glad that you have a diamond you love. However, it serves no real purpose to disparage the cutting of super ideal cut stones. Clarity is also not achieved in the way you describe - the finished stone is graded (hopefully) by reputable labs and ends up being what it is. Cutters can pretty well tell how a piece of rough will end up but not by hacking away all of the imperfections and then 'marking it up'. These statements are just ludicrous.

 

[tigertales]

No, I'm just saying a lot of diamond weight is lost. And I'm NOT saying super ideals are bad, just that clarity can be improved by cutting away imperfections that would otherwise remain in a deeper stone, and that that IS an advantage for marketing.

 

[blueMA]

When I first got a little pair of super ideals for some earrings, I was really disappointed...not because they didn't sparkle or weren't perfect...they did and they were. But here's the thing, I personally don't like the super precise cut ( OH horrors!). The perfect, perfect symmetry looks like they were cut by a robot. The arrows make a dark spikey pattern looking down through the table, and the table is so small it looks like a little circle.
Also, to get the perfect specs, the polisher has to cut away a good deal of the body of the diamond. ( Then of , course this allows them the luxury of cutting away imperfections, and the chances of marking up the price because now it's a VS 1 or something. In fact it probably had carbon mess all over it prior. It's deceptive). I like 60/60 because I feel like I've got a diamond with more of its original "body". I'm a rock hound originally, so I prefer having the feeling I've got a cool ROCK, even with its quirky, but natural and from the earth, imperfections.
'All face and no base' is how I refer to some diamonds that look like they've been cut to high heaven in order to catch the light a certain way.
In fact, the real secret to a diamond's beauty is the grain, and that's a matter of nature and chance. Cut can maximize that of course, but in the end, you have to judge a diamond by eye.

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.

 

[doberman]

How did you gather that? I think wild exaggeration isn’t going to sway people that superideals are in fact worth it. It makes them doubt your words even more.

Agree. Overhype is another reason people expect the superideal diamond to "jump out of the box". And maybe do a little song and dance for them.

 

[LightBright]

When I first got a little pair of super ideals for some earrings, I was really disappointed...not because they didn't sparkle or weren't perfect...they did and they were. But here's the thing, I personally don't like the super precise cut ( OH horrors!). The perfect, perfect symmetry looks like they were cut by a robot. The arrows make a dark spikey pattern looking down through the table, and the table is so small it looks like a little circle.
Also, to get the perfect specs, the polisher has to cut away a good deal of the body of the diamond. ( Then of , course this allows them the luxury of cutting away imperfections, and the chances of marking up the price because now it's a VS 1 or something. In fact it probably had carbon mess all over it prior. It's deceptive). I like 60/60 because I feel like I've got a diamond with more of its original "body". I'm a rock hound originally, so I prefer having the feeling I've got a cool ROCK, even with its quirky, but natural and from the earth, imperfections.
'All face and no base' is how I refer to some diamonds that look like they've been cut to high heaven in order to catch the light a certain way.
In fact, the real secret to a diamond's beauty is the grain, and that's a matter of nature and chance. Cut can maximize that of course, but in the end, you have to judge a diamond by eye.

Sorry for threadjack. I have found a kindred spirit. For the same reason, I love antique cuts (which tend to have more rock than necessary for an ideal cut. I love small tables with high crowns, deep pavilions and low LGF percentages because I love looking deep into the actual rock, and I love seeing the rough outline of the original crystal. I love a little bit of window/leakage (?) because I can see the interior of the stone. I love beautiful inclusions (not grain problems); inclusions that tell me that this was made from a natural process. You ar so right about grain, it makes a difference. If you start a post describing your love for the “ROCK”, I’m sure we will find others.

 

[tigertales]

The love is mutual, LightBright!

And yes, I chose a stone where I could see occasional traces of the original edge, even after polishing. It means it was cut right up close to the side of the rock, and I can imagine its "life" and its original shape before it was in my ring. I've got a "little carbon" (actually a microscopic island of little diamonds) that identifies my stone in an age of lab-grown. And, I was happy NOT to engrave the report number on it because that to me, for this particular crystal, would have detracted from it's purity.

OK> that's just my opinion. It's fine if some people say "That's ludicrous."

I've been collecting rocks of all kinds since I was about eight. I have very different priorities. Just because they don't jibe with traditional industry views does not make them illegitimate.

 

[kmoro]

I assume that you simply haven't seen a nice non super ideals. Superideal stones are simply branded H&A stones (Japan initiated the marketing) within tight range of parameters. There are many stones that don't cut the strict criteria by a very slim margin, and I guarantee you that you won't be able to tell the difference naked eye as long as the proportions are similar. This is why Whiteflash's Premium Select line can be an awesome bargain; there had been a few posters who were in fact more pleased with a PS performance over ACA. It's similar to you not being able to differentiate VVS1 vs VS1. That GIA stone posted earlier is no doubt an H&A, and any vendor would be proud to offer that stone.

For an example, checkout this post where @uyalison could not pick out a CBI amongst 5 other diamonds. Yes she could differentiate through a scope, but not through the naked eye, and I assutr you that she's not blind.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...between-wf-and-cbi.239329/page-3#post-4315090

Just pointing out that you probably mean Expert Selection and Premiun Select ... Expert Selection is ACA near-miss, and Premium Selection comes after that

 

[OoohShiny]

'All face and no base' is how I refer to some diamonds that look like they've been cut to high heaven in order to catch the light a certain way.
In fact, the real secret to a diamond's beauty is the grain, and that's a matter of nature and chance. Cut can maximize that of course, but in the end, you have to judge a diamond by eye.

I am not sure I understand this bit.


Surely all diamonds are cut to return light a certain way, be it a company-determined set of parameters or an individual cutter's personal choice of how they are going to cut the piece of rough to return the light in the manner they want (and be that a decision based on subjective beauty, hitting empirically measured light return targets, or simply to retain as much weight and therefore value as possible)?

Either way, whether one prefers the resultant light performance of one or another must be personal taste!


WRT 'the grain', can you expand further? AIUI 'grain' is basically invisible unless twinning wisps are present, which is why specialist machines are required to determine whether a diamond is natural (randomised grain patterns, surely) or man-made (ordered grain patterns, I imagine)?

 

[Titan7]

I assume that you simply haven't seen a nice non super ideals. Superideal stones are simply branded H&A stones (Japan initiated the marketing) within tight range of parameters. There are many stones that don't cut the strict criteria by a very slim margin, and I guarantee you that you won't be able to tell the difference naked eye as long as the proportions are similar. This is why Whiteflash's Premium Select line can be an awesome bargain; there had been a few posters who were in fact more pleased with a PS performance over ACA. It's similar to you not being able to differentiate VVS1 vs VS1. That GIA stone posted earlier is no doubt an H&A, and any vendor would be proud to offer that stone.

For an example, checkout this post where @uyalison could not pick out a CBI amongst 5 other diamonds. Yes she could differentiate through a scope, but not through the naked eye, and I assutr you that she's not blind.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...between-wf-and-cbi.239329/page-3#post-4315090

Please re-read my post, I never said that a stone outside of super ideal specs could not be a good diamond. Yes I have seen and my wife owns several near "super idea stone" that are very nice and to the casual, non-critical eye they might look very similar under some lighting conditions. However, when compared to her WF ACA Diamond, its a very noticeable difference and her other diamonds are not just avg cuts. I am hypercritical and have an eye for small details, I notice things others don't, I am special, heck no, that's just how I am wound. Just because somebody can't see the difference doesn't mean its not there. More on-point I believe is perhaps the difference is just not worth it to them for the price they have to pay. Some folks drive a Prius some drive a Porsche, neither is a bad choice.

Example, color is a very personal thing and I have had friends who I helped pick a diamond for their wife who were not able to see the difference between an F and G no matter how hard they look. Good for them, as they saved money but it doesn't mean there is not a difference.

As for GIA XXX, AGS 000, premium select, or whatever you want trade name they fall under, I am sure there are "some maybe even many examples" that would be almost identical to the SI cut. Like I said in my post, if you have the ability to go search them out, go for it. Me, I have actually seen a lot of them and I did fly from CA to TX to spend the better part of 3 hours at WF actually critically viewing MANY stones ACA and non-ACA, I see the difference even after blind swapping, but then, perhaps I am just brainwashed, lol.

It's all personal choices, that's what make life great, right?

 

[sstephensid]

Please re-read my post, I never said that a stone outside of super ideal specs could not be a good diamond. Yes I have seen and my wife owns several near "super idea stone" that are very nice and to the casual, non-critical eye they might look very similar under some lighting conditions. Just because somebody can't see the difference doesn't mean it not there or perhaps it's not worth it to them.

Example, color is a very personal thing and I have had friends who I helped pick a diamond for their wife who were not able to see the difference between an F and G no matter how hard they look. Good for them, as they saved money but it doesn't mean there is not a difference.

As for GIA XXX, AGS 000, premium select, or whatever you want trade name they fall under, I am sure there are "some maybe even many examples" that would be almost identical to the SI cut. Like I said in my post, if you have the ability to go search them out, go for it. Me, I have actually seen a lot of them and I did fly from CA to TX to spend the better part of 3 hours at WF actually critically viewing MANY stones ACA and non-ACA, I see the difference even after blind swapping, but then, perhaps I am just brainwashed, lol.

It's all personal choices, that's what make life great, right?

Does GIA or AGS distinguish between ideal and super ideal? Does any independent, non-biased, reputable lab note the difference? Brilliant Earth sells things that shall not be mentioned on PS that are “super ideal” but who is backing up that claim? In my research, only the vendor desingautes super ideals. But if there are no strict perimeters, one super ideal could be another ideal. Or vice versa.

Could a diamond BE “super ideal” yet be sold from a vendor that does not use such a term?

You compare it to the difference between colors but that is a difference graded/noted by AGS, GIA, etc.

 

[blueMA]

Just pointing out that you probably mean Expert Selection and Premiun Select ... Expert Selection is ACA near-miss, and Premium Selection comes after that

I meant Premium Select for the best bargain - they're GIA certified vetted stones that quality as near ACA miss or near H&A. Expert Selection are near ACA miss that are AGSL certified.

 

[Johnbt]

" In my research, only the vendor desingautes super ideals. But if there are no strict perimeters, one super ideal could be another ideal. Or vice versa."

What about the computerized mathematical ray tracing and proportions analysis done by AGS? Does that count as a strict parameter? It appear to be the textbook definition.

 

[blueMA]

I would dare to say the only person who could not see the difference between a WF ACA and other Super ideal cuts compared to the avg. well cut stone is either blind or in denial.

I am hypercritical and have an eye for small details, I notice things others don't

I'm exactly the same way with highly artistic & technical eyes, and yes I've read your post twice before replying. Seeing your response, I see you probably meant average GIA stones, not well cut stones such as in WF's Premium Select or other well cut GIA stones with optimal proportions that may miss H&A by slight varying hearts V's/lgh, clefts, etc. These little misses are not detectable by naked eye.

 

[ctsamg]

" In my research, only the vendor desingautes super ideals. But if there are no strict perimeters, one super ideal could be another ideal. Or vice versa."

What about the computerized mathematical ray tracing and proportions analysis done by AGS? Does that count as a strict parameter? It appear to be the textbook definition.

Does AGS classify stones as super ideal? I thought they stopped at Ideal

 

[blueMA]

Does AGS classify stones as super ideal? I thought they stopped at Ideal

"Superideal" is a made up marketing term for H&A stones.
To see H&A criteria, see here.
https://www.heartsandarrows.com/hearts-arrows-diamond-ideal-cut-dna.aspx

 

[ctsamg]

"Superideal" is a made up marketing term for H&A stones.
To see H&A criteria, see here.
https://www.heartsandarrows.com/hearts-arrows-diamond-ideal-cut-dna.aspx

That is to say, that there are no "strict parameters" with "mathematical ray tracing" that identify super ideal.

I don't believe that Super Ideal is totally marketing hype, but I do agree it is overblown on these forums, especially at the cost of most consumers preferences.

 

[blueMA]

That is to say, that there are no "strict parameters" with "mathematical ray tracing" that identify super ideal.

I don't believe that Super Ideal is totally marketing hype, but I do agree it is overblown on these forums, especially at the cost of most consumers preferences.

Not only that, it ultimately limits the consumer choice due to the marketing trend.
There are many lovely outlier proportions that're hard to find because H&A is basically limited to near Tolkowsky mathematical proportions.
Check out this thread.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/adding-symmetry-to-hca-scores.246504/#post-4488714