Anyone with a non-ideal diamond?

[february2003bride]

Does anyone else have a diamond they love that isn''t an ideal cut? Or you have no idea what the cut could be?

We bought my e-ring pre-pricescope (in 2002 from Blue Nile) and I have no idea what the cut is! The polish and symmetry are ''very good'', and it''s a GIA certed ''F'', VS2. I adore my princess cut diamond, it sparkles like mad and the rainbow of colors it gives off are gorgeous!

My closest friend got engaged last fall and her diamond is a RB and is a ''good'' cut and it''s stunning! Now if I can just convince her to keep it clean, I''ll be happy

I was reading winternight''s thread over on rockytalk about dead looking diamonds and most people responded that the dead looking diamonds she saw were probably not ideal cuts. So I thought I''d start a thread defending non-ideal cut diamonds

because you CAN have a non-ideal diamond and it look FABulous!

So- anyone else??

 

[bookworm21]

My asscher is a non-ideal cut, Ex-Ex symmetry and something else, I don''t remember what. But it glitters like mad, and I absolutely adore it! I''ve gotten many compliments on it too, and it makes me so happy when someone compliments it.

 

[poptart]

Mine is definitely not an ideal cut. It''s not even GIA certified and is .23. But it sure does shine. It''s marked as non-flour, but everytime I walk outside it turns a light bluish purple, so I don''t know what that is all about. It actually has pretty good spread and in low light it goes CRAZY!!

*M*

 

[shel]

I don''t have a non-ideal diamond, but in looking at store diamonds when I was initially shopping for an e-ring, I have to admit that I was sometimes hard-pressed to tell the difference between an ideal and a non-ideal.

Maybe it''s just my lack of training.

But I wonder: if you were to do a scientific "blind" comparison test (not literally blind of course!), how many people could reliably pick out the ideal stone, especially if it''s versus a very good cut for example?

(For the cognescenti, would the P value be less than 0.05?)

 

[Molly1024]

My radiant isn''t ideal, GIA just rates as "good" but it performs beautifully- lots of sparkle and flashes when it''s clean. I can only imagine how much more sparkly an ideal or excellent radiant would be. My DH picked it out way before we knew about pricescope; at least I know my upgrade will be ideal, although I love my diamond

 

[Mara]

i used to have a non-ideal round but i ended up being dissatisfied with its performance and will probably never purchase another non-ideal round cut again. i know there are pretty ones out there...but quite honestly with all the ideals we have at our reach here on PS...there's no reason to buy one for me. many times they aren't even a better deal price wise...than an ideal. this is just for rounds where it's easier to 'define' what might appeal to people visually...for fancies i don't necessarily believe in 'ideal' cuts as they seem to be better chosen by visuals than rounds in my opinion...i have seen some absolutely amazing non-ideals in fancies that outperform ideals, but i have never seen that in a round! i do remember that when i had my non-ideal round that i was trying to kind of convince myself i loved it and didn't see the flaws in the performance of it...but i did. so now with the stones i have...i don't have that worry at all.

oh and shel, i would imagine that most people could not pick necessarily between a 'very good' and an 'ideal' cut stone, esp in rounds...most people also don't look at diamonds in various types of lighting ...so looking at them side by side in a store environment or something is not the same as being out and living life. i can pick out arrows, which typically define very good symmetry in the stone...and for me an 'ideal' doesn't have to have absolutely perfect numbers, but it has to be close with nothing scary, and it has to have arrows and perform well under the idealscope with light return etc.

 

[goldenstar]

There''s a video on the Good Old Gold website that shows an ideal next to a non-ideal in different lighting conditions. I don''t have the link but it shouldn''t be hard to find on the website.

 

[Cind11]

My original enagaement diamond is not ideal. It wasn''t even certified. (course this was 25 yrs. ago) I now have it set in a halo pendant from Whiteflash. It looks pretty darn good-very sparkly!

 

[decodelighted]

Well ... I''m in the clear until February 07 ... when they actually declare the definition of "Ideal Asschers"!

However, I''m pretty sure mine is Not Ideal. Not Stm-worthy either! But there are varying degrees of "non-ideal-ness" and I really haven''t ever seen a nicer Asscher in person, including Royal Asschers ... so ... I''m thrilled with mine as is - no matter WHAT they say in Feb.

It really comes down to people''s personalities I think ... some folks love stones that don''t even HAVE "Ideals" ... OECs, OMCs, Modern Cushions, most fancies & antique cuts really! There''s personality & charm in chunky facets & rainbow hues & large culets & even quirky inclusions/flaws!

Other folks want to KNOW they have "the best". Mind-Ideal. Mind-Perfect. As well as being beautiful & having superior optical performance. The balance of which of those is important - or even how NOTICABLE the difference is varies from person to person.

How can you decide which WOMAN is more beautiful or which MAN is sexier? Is the symmetrical beauty more gorgeous than the more exotic one? Depends on who you ask!

 

[Cehrabehra]

My cushion/omc isn''t "ideal" it is "vg/vg"... but it really is beautiful When the sales people compliment it their face gets really serious and their eyes get really wide and they lean forward and nod while they''re talking like, "no - REALY - it''s amazing!" hehe I love that!! I love the variety of scint it has.... huge big broad flashes, itty bitty glittery pinfire, and medium sized (like that of a round) fire too... when kenny said his asscher was like opera it really made me think - mine is SO like jazz.... it''s got high and low notes *all* over the place It breaks all the rules

 

[kcoursolle]

Well...I have a radiant. Even though it''s cut well for a radiant, it still won''t come close to a well-cut round in performance. I love it anyways!!

 

[Lorelei]

Maybe I should have been clearer in my post in that thread which I answered, I meant by cut a well cut or 'nice make' of cut diamond, not necessarily a Superideal cut is not the only type of diamond to sparkle! So this encompasses any good cut which has a degree of performance, not necessarily " perfection' for proportions or considered Ideal. I meant the middling to fair to poor cuts which wouldn't look as good and rarely flash off a twinkle of light

I certainly agree 03Bride that you can have a non 'Ideal' cut and it will look fab in some instances!

 

[anchor31]

Mine is not an AGS ideal, but an AGS excellent. The table''s a little too big to be in the ideal range, and the symmetry is VG, not EX. But we got a great price for it, and it still has a HCA under 2, so we''re both extremely happy. It sparkles like mad! It has a tiny bit less fire in certain lighting conditions, but a lot much brilliance and bright white flashes in most lights, and I love it that way. We picked it with our eyes, and it was the right choice for us.

 

[Sundial]

I''m older than many of you so I''ve owned a number of different diamonds over the years. Sometimes we only knew the color and clarity of the stone when we bought it and sometimes not even that. Now that I have ideal cut diamonds I can compare them to the others. Some of them seem totally lifeless and I won''t wear them anymore, but we did pretty good on some of the others. Even though they are not ideal cut they can still be pretty and very sparkly.

 

[Dee*Jay]

I have a round that only gets a "very good" cut grade but it's gorgeous! So much so that I decided to forego getting a bigger stone (

) and keep this one--if that isn't love I don't know what is, LOL!

 

[lumpkin]

If we''re talking about RBs mine''s not ideal, but it''s pretty close. I''m very satisfied with it. I don''t have to have a super ideal to be happy, and it looks better than most of the diamonds I''ve seen IRL, regardless of what store and what price. I''m not someone who has to have the very best of the very best, but I definitely I want to know that I got a good value for what I spent.

I still like to browse, even though I''m not in the market. My favorite place to browse is in Whiteflash''s expert selection, in-house inventory. I''d definitely pick from there and get a bigger size than go for the cut above, but I''m SURE I''m in the minority here at PS, LOL! But I do have standards. I could not go below near ideal in cut.

 

[strmrdr]

The first diamond I proposed to my wifery2b the first time isn''t ideal cut.
It was however eye selected by me and is a very high performance diamond.
Knowing what I know now id just have ordered a super-ideal cut diamond from one of the PS vendors.
Which is exactly what I did for her second engagement dimaond.

 

[jfo]

I have a radiant too and my husband selected before I knew about Pricescope. I think as far as radiant specs go, it has a larger table than what some people prefer, but it does perform nicely. I sometimes wonder what it would be like to have a radiant with more preferable cut proportions, but I do love it anyway and think it''s rather unique the way it is now. Now if I could get over wanting every other diamond shape out there... (in addition to my radiant)

 

[KristyDarling]

Mine is an "old" AGS0 ideal, but doesn't meet the new AGS0 standards. So I guess it's not ideal anymore! It's still an incredible stone, though -- very fiery and sparkly! And it visually outperforms comparable stones that fall under current AGS0 standards, according to my appraiser Nan Stacy. Numbers don't offer the complete picture and don't mean everything.

Diamonds have mysterious qualities that go beyond what we can measure with scopes and computers.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 12/6/2006 10:38:20 AM
Author: Dee*Jay
I have a round that only gets a ''very good'' cut grade but it''s gorgeous! So much so that I decided to forego getting a bigger stone (

) and keep this one--if that isn''t love I don''t know what is, LOL!

do you have any idea what the stats are on it? when garry and I were discussing this stuff a while back, we talked about "islands" of performance.... interesting to know what the angles and stuff are.

Mine is like you took an intense beam and diffused it some.... it doesn''t shoot everything it''s got out the top - it shoots it out from the crown (which is 20% deep and 53% table so - big crown!) and while it doesn''t always have the same intensity as the ideal rounds, it has at least as much scintillation. Once when I put tinfoil behind it it visibly made a difference in the intensity of the rainbows on the wall so i''m hoping the mirrored cup under the stone will help with the intensity.... but boy, it sure is pretty

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 12/6/2006 1:19:36 AM
Author: decodelighted
Well ... I''m in the clear until February 07 ... when they actually declare the definition of ''Ideal Asschers''!

However, I''m pretty sure mine is Not Ideal. Not Stm-worthy either! But there are varying degrees of ''non-ideal-ness'' and I really haven''t ever seen a nicer Asscher in person, including Royal Asschers ... so ... I''m thrilled with mine as is - no matter WHAT they say in Feb.

It really comes down to people''s personalities I think ... some folks love stones that don''t even HAVE ''Ideals'' ... OECs, OMCs, Modern Cushions, most fancies & antique cuts really! There''s personality & charm in chunky facets & rainbow hues & large culets & even quirky inclusions/flaws!

Other folks want to KNOW they have ''the best''. Mind-Ideal. Mind-Perfect. As well as being beautiful & having superior optical performance. The balance of which of those is important - or even how NOTICABLE the difference is varies from person to person.

How can you decide which WOMAN is more beautiful or which MAN is sexier? Is the symmetrical beauty more gorgeous than the more exotic one? Depends on who you ask!

haha see I think I need one of each I have my quirky funky duck stone but I want a ''perfect'' round too but I think I''ll get a smaller one - like what I originally came here for - a 2/3-3/4 carat LOL!!! Except I think this time I''ll go for a D Strong Blue

 

[njc]

My diamond isnt ideal either, but I couldnt love it more.

Polish: VG
Cut: VG
Diameter: 5.80-5.84mm
Depth: 61.3%
Table: 59%
Color: E
Clarity: Eye-clean SI2

 

[Logan Sapphire]

My center stone isn''t ideal either- it''s a 61/61 and I''ve always found it somewhat lacking in my own mind b/c it''s not ideal. But then I added two ideal side stones and I can''t tell a difference at all! I think I''d built up what an ideal must be in my mind but honestly, they don''t look any different than my non-ideal. Maybe there would be more of a difference if the stones were bigger...

 

[mrssalvo]

I have studs that my hubby bought me pre-PS. they are not ideal cut but they still are very pretty. I will always keep them b/c of the sentiment that goes along with them. I actually wasn''t sure if my e-ring stone would still be an AGS000 since the new grading came into play but it still made it. I would have purchased it anyway, even if it wasn''t an AGS000 b/c I trusted the eyes of my vendor and knew it would be beautiful either way.

 

[E B]

Mine isn't ideal (vg/vg) but it scores 1 on the HCA, has very definite arrows and sparkles like crazy! It truly outperforms my other diamond, which was ideal. I couldn't be happier with its performance.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Date: 12/6/2006 9:39:55 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 12/6/2006 10:38:20 AM

Author: Dee*Jay

I have a round that only gets a 'very good' cut grade but it's gorgeous! So much so that I decided to forego getting a bigger stone (

) and keep this one--if that isn't love I don't know what is, LOL!

do you have any idea what the stats are on it? when garry and I were discussing this stuff a while back, we talked about 'islands' of performance.... interesting to know what the angles and stuff are.
)

Cehra - Here is a link (link); the stats are about half-way down, just under the pictures. I was considering trading up at one point and ended up talking Jim Schultz (i.e., James Allen). He told me that if my stone had a 40.6 (or higher) instead of a 40.4 pavilion angle it would have gotten an "excellent" instead of just "very good." For a *problem* of .2 I decided I could live with it.

 

[monarch64]

My RB is not ideal...but I''m very happy with it. The cut, symmetry, and polish were all graded EX on my GIA report. It is really beautiful, and I get compliments on it all the time. However, I was one of those non-educated people when I got engaged, and so was DH. I think if I''d been really bitten by the PS bug back then (4 yrs. ago), I may have wanted an ideal cut, but then again, I wouldn''t have wanted to sacrifice size for sparkle that may or may not have gone unnoticed, as far as the difference in performance between my stone and a potential ideal cut stone.

 

[salmon]

Sorry to Hi Jack the thread!

DEE JAY, DEE JAY, DEE JAY, that so called non-ideal is signing sweetheart. I mean that baby is really signing! Everyone commented on the size, but I was most concerned with that dazzling scintilating FIRE!! WOW! I''ve seen Super IDeal on here that didn''t sing like that baby. How did I ever miss that original thread. Next time I''ll throw on the Ray Bans, when I look at that post! What time of day did you take that photo? Was it "magic light" time? (Early morning/late afternoon). Anway, that baby pops! Nice!

 

[Dee*Jay]

Date: 12/7/2006 11:53:09 PM
Author: salmon
Sorry to Hi Jack the thread!


DEE JAY, DEE JAY, DEE JAY, that so called non-ideal is signing sweetheart. I mean that baby is really signing! Everyone commented on the size, but I was most concerned with that dazzling scintilating FIRE!! WOW! I've seen Super IDeal on here that didn't sing like that baby. How did I ever miss that original thread. Next time I'll throw on the Ray Bans, when I look at that post! What time of day did you take that photo? Was it 'magic light' time? (Early morning/late afternoon). Anway, that baby pops! Nice!

Salmon -- You are too funny! I took those pictures in the waning light of evening in my dark cave-like kitchen (with the exception of the ones on the balcony by the dirty Weber grill, LOL), so I'm surprised there were any good shots at all. The rock is going into a Jack Kelege setting that I ordered about a month ago (four weeks to the day yesterday, but who's counting... ) so there will be another thread relatively soon with the whole package. And I do promise to take the pics in the best possible light!

 

[innerkitten]

Yes! My e-ring is an old European cut. I really wanted an old cut diamond for my ring. But I like all types of diamonds and gemstones though I'm not as into new diamonds as most people here. I lean towards old stuff and colored gems.