Analysis Paralysis

[TH Morgan]

Have been quietly lurking on the forum for sometime and turning to your help for guidance as keep thinking I will pick the wrong diamond.

Briefly, looking to but an engagement ring. 2ct, round, petite pave setting. I am hoping to spend no more than 25K and closer to 20K the better. I understand that cut seems to have primacy and had seen these two as options. I welcome your thoughts and suggestions on any other recommendations

https://www.b2cjewels.com/dd/114512...m_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pricescope.com

https://www.b2cjewels.com/dd/108959...m_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pricescope.com

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Th,
As a trade member, I can not comment on any specific diamond...but I can make general comments.
A few things come to mind.
I agree- cut is very important.
The internet offers so much great information- and technology has advanced so that identifying the very best cut round diamonds has become far easier for consumers.
BUT- please keep in mind that some of the aspects discussed are subtle. The internet is a double-edged sword in this regard.
So, if one is looking for the ultimate in cut, it is fairly easy to choose a "Super Ideal" cut diamond- and this forum will assist greatly.
Yet, sometimes too much info makes decision making impossible.
With your budget, and based on the fact you want a very white diamond, you may need to compromise on the cut.
But it's important to keep in mind that many of the distinctions that make a "Super Ideal" what it is are subtle.
A small compromise in cut may allow you to stay in budget and still get a white, eye clean diamond in budget.
So keep an open mind, and don't stress this.

The best way to do get this done, IMO, is to find a seller you're comfortable with and work closely with them.
Shopping online, you will find an untenable amount of stones listed by a myriad of companies that do not have any connection to the diamonds they are offering other than a CSV file.
There are sellers that have a far more "hands on" business model.
As I've told countless consumers over the years- use your intuition- speak to the sellers, and pick one you're comfortable with. You're already very well versed on how to judge human nature. You're not going to be able to become a diamond expert in the time it takes to buy a single diamond.

 

[Lykame]

Have been quietly lurking on the forum for sometime and turning to your help for guidance as keep thinking I will pick the wrong diamond.

Briefly, looking to but an engagement ring. 2ct, round, petite pave setting. I am hoping to spend no more than 25K and closer to 20K the better. I understand that cut seems to have primacy and had seen these two as options. I welcome your thoughts and suggestions on any other recommendations

https://www.b2cjewels.com/dd/114512...m_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pricescope.com

https://www.b2cjewels.com/dd/108959...m_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pricescope.com

Hi! Welcome.

I'm very pleased you've posted here. I don't like either of these stones sorry. For the money you're spending at the very least you can have triple excellent and neither of these are that.

Are you sure you want to go as clarity clear as VVS?

In terms of angles... the G VVS1 has better angles in my opinion. But it's still not good enough.

I'm always a bit suspicious of stones that fall bang on the 2.00 carat mark or any of these big markers. They will likely have taken measure to preserve that 0.01 carat to ensure they got the markup for a 2 carat. That will be at the cost of light performance.

What about:

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4013669.htm

A bit smaller than you're thinking but it will be stunning:
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD9589

The right size although it is an SI1 (it will be eye clean), which is from 10 inches away in the face up position.
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD7430

Those are all super-ideal diamonds, so you are paying more for the cut than you might from elsewhere. If you don't want to go that route then I'm sure we could also find you some options from other vendors that will still be awesome. It depends what is important to you.

Regardless, at this amount of money you're going to want an ASET and idealscope images.

If anyone mentions something that you like the look of, put it on hold immediately because otherwise it'll be pinched from right under your nose.

Best,
Lydia.

 

[Katya DXB]

Hi TH,
I noticed both diamonds are VVS clarity. Is there a specific reason for it? If you just want an eye clean diamond, you can safely drop the clarity grade down to VS2 which would make a noticeable difference in price.

 

[TH Morgan]

No specific reason that both were of VVS clarity. I am essentially looking for an eye clean diamond

Thanks to all the responses!

 

[doberman]

Did you want an ideal cut? If you did....
Given that you're trying to keep costs down I'd lower your parameters one level. VVS1 is overkill, H is still white. These are a little more than you wanted to spend, but well cut.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2838114.htm?source=pricescope

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...color-vs1-clarity-true-hearts-cut-sku-4403969

 

[gm89uk]

How interesting that the second stone looks very nice, with good angles and 4% girdle depth but comes to a whopping 63.6% depth! Thought it must be a typo but it adds up looking at the diameter average and depth...

The pavilion depth is 43.5% with a 40.6 angle, which I thought was impossible. Shows you the extent of brillianteering to reach 2.00ct. When the numbers look that weird, I'd run away!

Can anyone explain how a cutter can achieve these proportions with those angles?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Guys- remember that for someone looking to buy a single diamond, most wont want to get into the super technical aspects.
Just from my experience, I can tell you that many of our buyers over the years love we’ll cut stones- yet they also place a high priority on size, color and price.
To the OP- if you’re looking to learn about crown and pavilion angles, this is an amazing place to do it. But by no means is it necessary for you to become an expert to get a great stone.

 

[Lykame]

Guys- remember that for someone looking to buy a single diamond, most wont want to get into the super technical aspects.
Just from my experience, I can tell you that many of our buyers over the years love we’ll cut stones- yet they also place a high priority on size, color and price.
To the OP- if you’re looking to learn about crown and pavilion angles, this is an amazing place to do it. But by no means is it necessary for you to become an expert to get a great stone.

Totally agree that most won't want to get into the super technical aspects of buying a diamond. But as a consumer myself, I can tell you that if I'm going to pay a premium for a 2 carat stone, there's no way I want to be paying that premium for 'extra' weight kept on the stone just to keep it at that premium. As a consumer, I would get seriously annoyed that I'm paying for extra diamond over the cost of light performance. I would like to think that if I posted here, someone would point that out to me so that I didn't make a costly mistake like that. Will those stones be pretty? Probably. Are they more expensive than they should be? Definitely.

Different people will have different priorities, and for some it's important that they get that 2.00 carat D or whatever, but having looked at the worst cut 2 carat D myself, I just don't understand the appeal. I hope that we as a community can at least educate other consumers so that they're making educated decisions about where their money is going. I totally agree that not everyone wants a super ideal. That's fine. A lot of people will be delighted from just seeing a diamond that they think is sparkly enough. It's how I chose my first GIA triple excellent diamond, and I was happy enough for a while. Then I grew regret at the money I wasted (thousands). I would heavily encourage at least GIA triple excellent, with the understanding that even all of those aren't great, but I bought with ignorance over education (despite trying really hard to be educated) and I regret it.

This is a great place to learn about angles etc, and also to really figure out what things are important to the buyer. We should all be helping a person buy what they want rather than what we would want. But we can educate along the way, and that may modify their decisions slightly too - and that's great. The people who find this forum and choose to post are already a very selected group of people anyway.

If the diamond industry were more transparent about things like leaving weight on a diamond to keep it at 2 carats, this wouldn't even be a conversation that needed to happen, but good on anyone who wants to be educated about it so they can make wise decisions. They don't need to get super obsessed about it - just sensible. It seems like that is what the OP is aiming for.

 

[WinkHPD]

I agree- cut is very important.
The internet offers so much great information- and technology has advanced so that identifying the very best cut round diamonds has become far easier for consumers.
BUT- please keep in mind that some of the aspects discussed are subtle. The internet is a double-edged sword in this regard.
So, if one is looking for the ultimate in cut, it is fairly easy to choose a "Super Ideal" cut diamond- and this forum will assist greatly.
Yet, sometimes too much info makes decision making impossible.
With your budget, and based on the fact you want a very white diamond, you may need to compromise on the cut.
But it's important to keep in mind that many of the distinctions that make a "Super Ideal" what it is are subtle.

While I agree with some of what Rock has to say, as usual I am not in agreement with his comment that you may want to cut corners on cut to stay within your budget.

While some of those corners may appear to be subtle, in many blind taste tests, over 90% of the people I show diamonds to end up selecting a super ideal cut with their eyes, no information from me about what color or clarity until after the diamond that they like is chosen.

To me, that indicates a pretty good trend.

It seems those subtle differences make a visible difference to the eye.

Wink

 

[flyingpig]

How interesting that the second stone looks very nice, with good angles and 4% girdle depth but comes to a whopping 63.6% depth! Thought it must be a typo but it adds up looking at the diameter average and depth...

The pavilion depth is 43.5% with a 40.6 angle, which I thought was impossible. Shows you the extent of brillianteering to reach 2.00ct. When the numbers look that weird, I'd run away!

Can anyone explain how a cutter can achieve these proportions with those angles?

because of 45% star?

 

[Katya DXB]

How interesting that the second stone looks very nice, with good angles and 4% girdle depth but comes to a whopping 63.6% depth! Thought it must be a typo but it adds up looking at the diameter average and depth...

The pavilion depth is 43.5% with a 40.6 angle, which I thought was impossible. Shows you the extent of brillianteering to reach 2.00ct. When the numbers look that weird, I'd run away!

Can anyone explain how a cutter can achieve these proportions with those angles?

My guess is that with a 0.12mm variation in diameter, individual PA’s must be quite far from the rounded 40.6? You sometimes find odd combinations of pa depth and % on GIA reports because of rounding. I once corresponded with them on a similar subject, will try to see if I can dig out some examples or rounding they sent me.

 

[Katya DXB]

No specific reason that both were of VVS clarity. I am essentially looking for an eye clean diamond

Thanks to all the responses!

You can definitely look in the VS range then, possibly even go down to SI1 but it can be tricky to find an eye clean SI1 in a 2ct diamond.
As for the ones you asked about, I prefer the first one. I agree with those who said that the second diamond looks a bit odd. But I also think that if you lower the clarity grade, you’ll be able to find a GIA XXX (excellent cut, polish and symmetry) which would perform better than the options above.
Sorry I’m not good at finding diamonds but there are lots of experts here who I am sure will be able to suggest some great options!

 

[farrahlyn]

i prefer the angles of the first but i'd want at least a picture. the symetry is "Very Good" so id absolutely want to see a picture.

other options:

(not sure if this would be eye clean but it's worth asking about.
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-de...AMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-de...AMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

LOVE this one and you'll definitely like the price! Only thing that is concerning is the comments on the clarity plot about clouds not shown. clouds can cause a negative impact on light return in SI stones so you'll want to ask if they can examine it for you.
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-de...AMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

REALLY nice stone and this inclusion may be able to be covered with a prong
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-de...AMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

Another one with the clouds not shown comments.
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-de...AMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

Strong blue fluoro so you'd want it checked to make sure there is no negative effect from the fluoro. it's not common but does happen.
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-de...AMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

 

[whitewave]

Search B2c with these numbers:
Gia excellent:

Depth 60-62.3

Table 54-57

Pavilion 40.6 to 40.9

Crown 34-35

 

[whitewave]

Also, use the search engine at the top of this page.

 

[whitewave]

https://www.adiamor.com/Diamonds/2....Cut-Round-Diamond/D41857726?&refer=pricescope

Looking at mm, this one is not much smaller than the first one you listed:
1.86 H Vs1 $18,657.00
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD00064570?click_id=395260266

 

[whitewave]

Get a video of this one:
https://www.b2cjewels.com/dd/110118...m_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pricescope.com
2.03 H vs1 $20,664

 

[Rockdiamond]

Totally agree that most won't want to get into the super technical aspects of buying a diamond. But as a consumer myself, I can tell you that if I'm going to pay a premium for a 2 carat stone, there's no way I want to be paying that premium for 'extra' weight kept on the stone just to keep it at that premium. As a consumer, I would get seriously annoyed that I'm paying for extra diamond over the cost of light performance.

We should all be helping a person buy what they want rather than what we would want.

Lykame, it's important to understand that "light performance", when used in thse cases, is a commercial advertising term- pure and simple. It's a preference, unlike a hard fixed number such as an automobile's performance as judged by acceleration.
My idea of light performance places a high priority on spread, as well as other optical properties. I agree that many buyers feel as you stated- why pay more for a stone that looks smaller.
While it's true that many ( the majority) of the RBC stones on the market are cut to save weight, it's not true that every stone not cut to "super ideal" proportions is hiding a lot of weight. Sometimes just the opposite. "Ideal" cut stones have steeper crowns and greater overall depth than my preferred proportions. So the spread is less than a stone with a slightly shallower crown and slightly larger table ( 60/60).
Make no mistake, the type of well cut spready stone I have in mind is just as rare as "Super Ideal" cut stones on the market. Furthermore, the look I prefer is one of more scintillation, less contrast. The entire look is super rare as most RBC stones I see in the market are trying to emulate a super ideal or H&A.
There can be all kinds of reasons that Wink and I have different experiences when showing stones to folks.
Geographic differences - differences in the type of light in our offices- and of course differences in our life and diamond experiences.
I've shown Super Ideal Diamonds to buyers and had them choose other super well cut stones which I selected.... stones that looked decidedly different than the Super Ideal This is a preference question.

 

[sledge]

Echo the others on the angles, etc not working on your first two.

Suggest considering the following:

2.01ct, F, VS2, 56T, 61.7D, 34/40.8 - $21,277
https://www.fourmine.com/shop/diamond/72760129

1.92ct, D, VS2, 56T, 60.9D, 35/40.6 - $22,400
https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R192-724745158

1.80ct, F, VVS1, 56T, 61.5D, 34.5/40.6 - $23,321
https://www.yadavjewelry.com/diamonds/2711403


Some super ideal options. You can see how true hearts & arrow (H&A) symmetry, AGS000 certification, etc can push prices up differently. While I can stay within your budget, I am having to "sacrifice" a little on color. Keep in mind, most people can't tell a difference between D & G colors as it's very minor; however, I am not sure you and your SO's color sensitivity & tolerance.

WF ACA 2.026ct G SI1, 55.7T, 61.7D, 34.9/40.8 - $22,919
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3995840.htm

Lovely combo for great price. This appears to be eye clean, gets you super ideal and over the 2 carat mark if that is important to you.

WF ACA 1.928ct G VS2, 56.3T, 61.7D, 34.4/40.8 - $24,295
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4037189.htm

WF ACA 1.904ct G VS2, 56.5T, 61.5D, 34.6/40.7 - $23,743
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4015037.htm

WF ACA 1.876ct G VS1, 55.7T, 61.7D, 34.5/40.6 - $23,914
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4022610.htm

WF ACA 1.811ct G VS2, 54.9T, 62.0D, 34.6/40.7 - $21,870
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4037188.htm

 

[sledge]

Lykame, it's important to understand that "light performance", when used in thse cases, is a commercial advertising term- pure and simple. It's a preference, unlike a hard fixed number such as an automobile's performance as judged by acceleration.
My idea of light performance places a high priority on spread, as well as other optical properties. I agree that many buyers feel as you stated- why pay more for a stone that looks smaller.
While it's true that many ( the majority) of the RBC stones on the market are cut to save weight, it's not true that every stone not cut to "super ideal" proportions is hiding a lot of weight. Sometimes just the opposite. "Ideal" cut stones have steeper crowns and greater overall depth than my preferred proportions. So the spread is less than a stone with a slightly shallower crown and slightly larger table ( 60/60).
Make no mistake, the type of well cut spready stone I have in mind is just as rare as "Super Ideal" cut stones on the market. Furthermore, the look I prefer is one of more scintillation, less contrast. The entire look is super rare as most RBC stones I see in the market are trying to emulate a super ideal or H&A.
There can be all kinds of reasons that Wink and I have different experiences when showing stones to folks.
Geographic differences - differences in the type of light in our offices- and of course differences in our life and diamond experiences.
I've shown Super Ideal Diamonds to buyers and had them choose other super well cut stones which I selected.... stones that looked decidedly different than the Super Ideal This is a preference question.

I don't think that @Lykame was trying to debate if light performance was a commercial term or not. But since you mentioned automobile performance, let's look at that closer as well. So many factors go into performance. Horsepower, torque, traction, engine temperature, fuel type, weight of driver, experience of driver, outside air temperature, barometric pressure, test tune adjustments, etc.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Take the same car and put two different drivers in it and you will almost always get two different performance results. Just because I may be able to run a 9.9 quarter mile in Car A does not indicate that you can. It does indicate under the right conditions, the car is capable of producing that result.

Additionally a car that runs a 9.9 quarter mile may do horribly bad on a slalom style race course. Take for instance when I was drag racing my Challenger. My fat girl would haul the mail quite well down a straight drag strip; however, on a track with curves the ass end was all over the place (which made for quite a bit of fun actually) and consequently cars with less horsepower & more traction that couldn't beat me in the 1320 could blast by me on the curves.

So does this mean we can't really judge automobile performance, and that it too is just commercial lip service?

This last car analogy is somewhat similar to a 60/60 style vs TIC style diamond IMO. Both can perform beautifully in their given environments, but are very different overall. Whenever purchasing, the buyer needs to understand the differences or there is a high probability of disappointment.

 

[Rockdiamond]

sledge

You're making my point- and very well at that.
Using the automotive analogy- you're correct that different drivers, weather conditions, altitude and other factors will affect acceleration times.
Objective automotive testing will identify and attempt to equalize these variables.
If Pontiac is publishing the figures, it might not be objective- because they can hide the variables- instead, just posting a result.
OK, so when we're discussing light performance of diamonds, what are the limiting factors and or variables?
We can standardize the variables and use an ASET. This tells us exactly how a diamond behaves in an ASET. But how important is this in the real world, where the diamond will actually be observed?
That's putting aside the fact that if we did eliminate, and or tremendously limit all variables ( and it's quite possible with automotive acceleration or skidpad testing) we will get a numerical result which has meaning.
There's just no way to do this with an object which is judged for beauty.

ETA- what one observer might view as "cutting corners" another might find the same attribute to be an asset- maybe a stone that has a better spread, but less fire.

 

[WinkHPD]

RE:

OK, so when we're discussing light performance of diamonds, what are the limiting factors and or variables

Sledge gave a nice car analogy, which serves a strong purpose.

Meanwhile here is the science:

100 years ago Marcel Tolkowsky, a mathematician, calculated two things about the round brilliant: 1A was the optimal angles which will return light entering the crown back to the viewer’s eyes; and those angles creates edge to edge brightness in low lighting, which causes diamonds having those angles look larger in normal and low lighting than ones without those angels. 1B was the optimal range for the table facet which, when paired with those angles, leaves enough diamond material in the crown for light to max out Refractive Index (RI) without compromising the angles laid he out in 1A.

A century later his proportions still get the highest grade in every independent grading metric, even GIA’s non-scientific study. The University of Arizona, AGS Laboratories and the Russians all independently show that mathematical premise to be correct; also peer-reviewed and supported by the Society of Optical Engineers. This is not “commercial advertising.” It is repeatable confirmed science.

That doesn’t mean a 60-60 make, or an antique make or another diamond shape won’t be someone’s favorite. But when the educated prosumers here correlate angles to “light performance” they are not falling victim to advertising. They are on-point with their comments and frame them correctly.

I don’t experience “Geographical differences” when it comes to preference. We send diamonds to consumers around the nation and abroad with our “See It To Believe It” program. It allows them to tour the diamond around and compare it with anything else local before either confirming the sale, or returning it to me. Our closure rate with that program is greater than 90%.

Wink

 

[Rockdiamond]

Physics is science- repeatable science. Light performance describes how a diamond looks. How people react to different types of light performance is NOT a repeatable phenomenon, from one individual to the next.
As we shift the angles, certain facets will brighten and others will be less bright- sure, that's true, based on physics/science.
The very same science will prove that in many cases, as we gain contrast and brightness, we lose scintillation. It's the balance of these elements that makes diamonds attractive to people.
But which of those combinations is "better" optically? AH- we need a human to observe, yes? To decide which light performance is better- for them.
That's not at all how Light Performance has been presented here.
Light performance is presented as an absolute here. It's not.
Physics is absolute- judging light performance is subjective.

Back to auto analogies ( I've always been a car guy)
Say I stated that "Jeep is the best performer".
Many people might say that in a discussion of four-wheel drive vehicles. But of course, in a general discussion of all cars, it's a ridiculous statement.
In discussions like these, light performance is referred to as some sort of absolute, yet with no workable qualifications on what we're rating. If a set of parameters favors a specific type of well cut diamond over another, it becomes an advertising pitch.
My diamond performs better than yours. Prove it doesn't.
We also have our own "see it to believe it" program- called a money back guarantee.
We're also above 90% acceptance rate. How many diamonds you or I sell and how people react to us as sellers is not a fair and objective manner in which to judge this.

I think Super Ideal cut stones are beautiful. As are a few other amazingly well cut types of diamonds. Which performs better is a subjective question.

 

[gm89uk]

Due to different weight distribution within the diamond, I've found the extra spread from 60/60 isn't as great as you'd think:
Supposedly great spread:
(1.00carat, 60.8% depth, 6.445mm)
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...j-color-si2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-3646773

(1.00carat, 60.9% depth, 6.43mm)
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...j-color-si2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-4259635

Compare that to:

(1.00carat,62.1% depth, 6.455mm)
https://enchanteddiamonds.com/v/196140Z78

(1.00carat, 61.8% depth, 6.435mm)
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD8709

(1.007carat, 61.9% depth, 6.43mm)
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3929342.htm

Even:
(1.00, 62.7%, 6.415mm)
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...color-vs2-clarity-true-hearts-cut-sku-2536114.

Depth =/= spread, and you may not be gaining all that much spread with a 60/60.

For the OP, well cut 60/60 (which tend to have skinnier arrows) stones give generally plenty of fast paced white scintillation (on and off flashes). A tolk (superideal style) generally gives fewer broader flashes with more discernable coloured flashes. All diamonds give off fire, but some will do so consistently more in various lighting environments.

Having seen quite a few 60:60 stones, they definitely have their flavour, but I would pick a tolk every time.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi gm
We can always find specific examples that show spreader or less spready stones of any proportion set.
The 1ct Stones I’m thinking of have spread of 6.5 mm
Very cool that you’ve seen 60/60 stones in a store!
I have a hard time finding them on the NY market. And the specific type of make that I was trained on At Winston are pretty much impossible to find.

In general , deeper stones give better yields. I don’t have any sort of stats to back thIs up- but my feeling is that well cut stones of the 1980’s averaged a few percentage points more shallow than the well cut stones of today.
A lot more carat stones- we’ll cut ones anyway- spread greater than 6.4mm. And I have looked at literally hundreds of thousands of stones since the ‘80’s.
I’ve absolutely noticed that RBC stones are deeper on average since GIA introduced the cut grade. Without a doubt the bulk of RBCs on the market today are cut lto look ideal ( tables below 60 depth above 61 and shorter lgf )- which allows them to hold extra weight and imitate H&A.
Back to the car analogy. If a forum is dominated by Ford owners, the Camaro is going to be trashed in a debate versus mustang.
If you, or I or any participant is allowed to set a standard for which light performance is better that standard will be lopsided based on your taste. That’s what’s going on here when the discussion turns to light performance.
Just because you like Tolk better doesn’t make it a better performer for me.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Also- I have no horse in this race other than promoting a more neutral and fair discussion here. We can sell Super Ideal, and if we found them, the 60/60 of my dreams.
I objectively discuss these points with our clients and allow them to direct me.
Like Wink, we’ve shown Super Ideals next to well cut non Super Ideals- but our results are different than his.
I have a tremendous respect and affection for Wink. Without a doubt he’s infectious- in a good way!
For sure when each of us shows a diamond, we can’t help but put some of ourselves into it- which will skew results.

 

[WinkHPD]

I think Super Ideal cut stones are beautiful. As are a few other amazingly well cut types of diamonds. Which performs better is a subjective question.

Definitely. And in my experience most people agree with the repeatable science. Which points to tolk.

Having seen quite a few 60:60 stones, they definitely have their flavour, but I would pick a tolk every time.

I’m with you. So are the vast majority of clients I have encountered in over 40 years of service. Not 100%, but it’s darn close.

I have a tremendous respect and affection for Wink. Without a doubt he’s infectious- in a good way! For sure when each of us shows a diamond, we can’t help but put some of ourselves into it- which will skew results.

Thank you for the kind words and back at you. I would just point out that I’m not actually there to skew anything. In my “See It To Believe It” program the diamond arrives and shows itself. I am not involved in the comparisons. So any ‘skew’ is a result of the diamond’s impact on the viewer. Not mine.

Wink

 

[Dancing Fire]

We need to see David's best 60/60 stone vs a MRB H&A stone.

 

[Lykame]

Lykame, it's important to understand that "light performance", when used in thse cases, is a commercial advertising term- pure and simple. It's a preference, unlike a hard fixed number such as an automobile's performance as judged by acceleration.
My idea of light performance places a high priority on spread, as well as other optical properties. I agree that many buyers feel as you stated- why pay more for a stone that looks smaller.
While it's true that many ( the majority) of the RBC stones on the market are cut to save weight, it's not true that every stone not cut to "super ideal" proportions is hiding a lot of weight. Sometimes just the opposite. "Ideal" cut stones have steeper crowns and greater overall depth than my preferred proportions. So the spread is less than a stone with a slightly shallower crown and slightly larger table ( 60/60).
Make no mistake, the type of well cut spready stone I have in mind is just as rare as "Super Ideal" cut stones on the market. Furthermore, the look I prefer is one of more scintillation, less contrast. The entire look is super rare as most RBC stones I see in the market are trying to emulate a super ideal or H&A.
There can be all kinds of reasons that Wink and I have different experiences when showing stones to folks.
Geographic differences - differences in the type of light in our offices- and of course differences in our life and diamond experiences.
I've shown Super Ideal Diamonds to buyers and had them choose other super well cut stones which I selected.... stones that looked decidedly different than the Super Ideal This is a preference question.

@sledge is completely correct, I wasn't using light performance as that term that is commercial, I was using it in a neutral scientific way. I know that super ideals have amazing light performance, but it's a specific type of light performance and that has to be to the buyer's preference. Why do you think I said we need to figure out what the OP wants rather than what we want? I know I prefer super ideals. I'm sure that biases me when looking on behalf of other people. I know my mum has a 60/60 stone that is well cut and she LOVES it. I don't, it's a boring stone to me. It's all personal preference.

You're not actually saying something different to me, but I do think you could have phrased it differently. You specifically mentioned compromising on cut and that's not, based on your subsequent posts in here, what you actually meant. You seemed to be trying to say, make sure the OP knows about all the different flavours of light performance and chooses the one most beautiful to them... And yes that might be outside of super ideal. Although I personally wouldn't be one of those people.

What I was trying to say was hiding weight in a stone with little regards to beautiful cut drives me batty. As I said, I saw a 2.00 carat D and it was pants. But worth probably a lot more than a better cut 1.9 carat D, regardless of whether that's a super ideal or one of your beautiful other stones. I would hate hate hate to recommend to someone to dump their money into that 2 carat premium at the compromise of cut.

Hopefully I phrased that all ok.

@TH Morgan how are you doing with your search? This thread got a tad derailed but hopefully in a helpful way. Have you made any progress?