CBI vs ACA - Another pic and vid comparison

[whitewave]

All I know is, it sure is easy to call either WF or HPD and let them get you what you want and then buy it. Easy peasy and with confidence that you are getting a vetted, in house quality diamond with excellent trade in policies...

 

[erislynn]

I've been asked several times to post the exact proportions of the stones I've compared because some people think the difference in fire I've seen is due to a more brilliant cut vs more fiery cut. It is true a stone that leans towards a taller crown, smaller table within ideal proportions can have bonus fire, but the difference I saw, as well as many others, was not due to these numbers. Those of us who have seen CBI in person know that there's a distinct high contrast look to all their stones, even though they have slight variations in proportions just like ACA.

CBI states that they fine-tune the alignment of their facets above and beyond what is measured in a grading report in order to create their distinct look and fire. I don't know if that's all there is to it (would people stop asking what the secret sauce is? It's a secret, for crying out loud!! ) but I do know what I see with my own eyes. And I strongly encourage buyers considering a superideal to judge for themselves in person, preferably in regular ambient lighting.

My ACA:
Crown: 34.2
Pavillion: 40.8
Table: 56.6
LGF: 77
Star: 53
Depth: 60.9

My CBI:
Crown: 34.2
Pavillion: 40.7
Table: 56.8
LGF: 77
Star: 55
Depth: 61.2

I further looked at another ACA (the one in this post) with these specs:
Crown: 34.6
Pavillion: 40.7
Table: 56.4
LGF: 77
Star: 50
Depth: 61.5

And I still noticed more fire in the CBI. I cannot reiterate this enough: I do not prefer fire and am not saying more fire is better. But my honest observation is that the superior dispersion CBI touts is true. The high contrast look also makes the white sparkle appear more intense, and the edge-to-edge brightness is literally to the edge at every octant even in low light.

 

[OoohShiny]

Thank you for posting the details and your considered assessment

They are all quite similar, no major differences really apart from the Star Facet measurements, although I appreciate that even small changes in angles can make a big difference!

I think the Star facets aspect is the one thing I am personally still not clear about, in terms of how they affect performance and what characteristics different measurements have, but that's something I should probably research rather than fishing for answers here... lol

 

[Miki Moto]

@erislynn Hi! This is the best thread! I am new to the world of of online shopping for diamonds. My buying habits... I like super ideal, but I hate searching for stones and doing the math (now... if you ask me about pearls, I will spend hours/weeks/months on pearls). I like to research the vendor and then just buy a stone because my thoughts are, if a vendor is good, the stone will be fine for me.

May I have your thoughts please based on your CBI experience?
I am considering upgrading my earring studs which are currently HOF. In my laymen terms, I like sparkle and brilliance. The fire (which is the rainbow color) is secondary to me as is the contrast (the black & white), which I actually do not like the "black" part. My HOF has so much of the "black & white" that it bugs me. Some people probably love the contrast, but not me.

Based on my description above of what I like, do you think your CBI has that sparkle? Your stone looks gorgeous in the photos and video. There is so much praise and push on this forum for ACAs, that quite frankly, it makes be a bit hesitant to go with them. There is not so much discussion about CBIs, but when I read their website, it seems these stones are more precision cut, and of course our photos are a great help. Plus, I just realized in another thread from @Wink, I think CBI sources and cuts their own stones from the rough (correct me if I am wrong) which I do like.

Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Your stone is gorgeous, and yes, I can see the difference. I like the "sparkle", I just don't want to much contrast or "black & white" as I call it.

Thank you again for posting this comparison! I was just beginning to read about CBI last night and your thread is super helpful.

 

[erislynn]

Hi Miki Moto! I'm glad you found this thread helpful and thanks for the compliments. How exciting for you to be upgrading your studs! I think we may have similar taste in diamond proportions. Too much contrast is not my cup of tea either. When you say the "black and white" I'm not sure exactly what you mean, so I'm going to try to illustrate here the two types of contrast I've noticed and maybe this will help you decide.

1. Skinny or fat arrows:

When you see the diamonds in the face on view, the arrows make up the black part. If you want to have more subtle black, you can look for diamonds with skinnier arrows. I found this was key in finding the amount of contrast I liked. Usually LGF of 77 or higher was just enough black to accentuate the white to my eyes. Of course, this will sacrifice some fire but we both don't seem to prioritize the colored sparkles. Here is a great thread comparing the arrow thickness: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/skinny-or-fatter-arrow-in-round-brilliant.206722/

2. Darkness of arrows:



These two images are the exact same diamond, same size arrows, exact same background, exact same brightness of the white areas and table. The only thing different is the darkness of the arrows. See how the darker arrows make the white sparkle look whiter? IRL, this is the difference I see between ACA and CBI. IRL this kind of contrast also make the CBI appear to have more depth, like you're looking into a pond and you can see the fish are much deeper than the surface. The more you look at it, the more you will see the facets have a 3D effect that's pretty mesmerizing.

So hopefully, what you're looking for is some combination of these types of contrast. For me, skinnier arrows plus the darker arrows of a CBI are perfect. And you're right, CBI does source and cut their own rough in their own facility. It does make for extremely high precision and quality control, and a lot of people like that boutique-y type of craftsmanship.

Also, just throwing this out there, but since these will be for earrings and you can't always tilt your ears to see the beautiful arrows, have you considered 60/60 diamonds? Maybe that is the amount of contrast you're looking for. They're aren't superideal but they face up very white. Here is an example:



@HappyNewLife also used to have a gorgeous 60/60 solitaire. https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-eye-clean-si1-platinum-ring-size-4-5.234948/ And then she upgraded to an ACA, so maybe she could tell you about how they compare.

 

[Miki Moto]

@erislynn Hi! Thank you for taking the time to post the explanation and photos/links. I think you hit it on the nail for me... I prefer the skinny arrows. The link was super helpful... who knew... fat arrows vs skinn arrows.

On the 60/60, a few months ago, I would have told you I love that white diamond look. But having been on PS for a few months and looking at all the super ideal H&As, I must say, I am getting to appreciate and liking the contrast of the arrows more. I am also beginning to appreciate my HOF more, so my upgrade will be a super ideal. I still do like white, so the key for me then is to look for the skinny arrows/LGF.

Thank you again so much! That was very helpful!

 

[HappyNewLife]

Hi Miki Moto! I'm glad you found this thread helpful and thanks for the compliments. How exciting for you to be upgrading your studs! I think we may have similar taste in diamond proportions. Too much contrast is not my cup of tea either. When you say the "black and white" I'm not sure exactly what you mean, so I'm going to try to illustrate here the two types of contrast I've noticed and maybe this will help you decide.

1. Skinny or fat arrows:

When you see the diamonds in the face on view, the arrows make up the black part. If you want to have more subtle black, you can look for diamonds with skinnier arrows. I found this was key in finding the amount of contrast I liked. Usually LGF of 77 or higher was just enough black to accentuate the white to my eyes. Of course, this will sacrifice some fire but we both don't seem to prioritize the colored sparkles. Here is a great thread comparing the arrow thickness: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/skinny-or-fatter-arrow-in-round-brilliant.206722/

2. Darkness of arrows:



These two images are the exact same diamond, same size arrows, exact same background, exact same brightness of the white areas and table. The only thing different is the darkness of the arrows. See how the darker arrows make the white sparkle look whiter? IRL, this is the difference I see between ACA and CBI. IRL this kind of contrast also make the CBI appear to have more depth, like you're looking into a pond and you can see the fish are much deeper than the surface. The more you look at it, the more you will see the facets have a 3D effect that's pretty mesmerizing.

So hopefully, what you're looking for is some combination of these types of contrast. For me, skinnier arrows plus the darker arrows of a CBI are perfect. And you're right, CBI does source and cut their own rough in their own facility. It does make for extremely high precision and quality control, and a lot of people like that boutique-y type of craftsmanship.

Also, just throwing this out there, but since these will be for earrings and you can't always tilt your ears to see the beautiful arrows, have you considered 60/60 diamonds? Maybe that is the amount of contrast you're looking for. They're aren't superideal but they face up very white. Here is an example:



@HappyNewLife also used to have a gorgeous 60/60 solitaire. https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-eye-clean-si1-platinum-ring-size-4-5.234948/ And then she upgraded to an ACA, so maybe she could tell you about how they compare.

I had a very nice 60/60 diamond, but it doesn't compare to my ACA in any way. The bright, colorful pastelly flashes are something I could never give up now that I've had an ACA. My 60/60 was sparkly, but only white flashes.

 

[blueMA]

The main differences on the arrow skinny/fat dark/light I've seen are more due to pavillion angle differences along with lower girdle length (longer, skinnier = less bold flashes). As pavillion goes up, the crown angle has to compensate and go down for ideal light return. The main difference you see is not due to brand differences. In fact, I tend to see more CBI stones with 40.8 pavillion, not 40.7 with varying lower girdle length, along with appropriate varying crown angles to stay within the AGS ideal sweet proportions. You can't say a brand is superior based on a very small sampling of stones with varying angles. More over, stones with the same exact proportions can perform quite differently IRL.

 

[blueMA]

@erislynn Hi! Thank you for taking the time to post the explanation and photos/links. I think you hit it on the nail for me... I prefer the skinny arrows. The link was super helpful... who knew... fat arrows vs skinn arrows.

On the 60/60, a few months ago, I would have told you I love that white diamond look. But having been on PS for a few months and looking at all the super ideal H&As, I must say, I am getting to appreciate and liking the contrast of the arrows more. I am also beginning to appreciate my HOF more, so my upgrade will be a super ideal. I still do like white, so the key for me then is to look for the skinny arrows/LGF.

Thank you again so much! That was very helpful!

Miki Moto, if you want lots of sparkles, skinny arrows (scintillate more at the expense of bolder flash) are not necessarily what you want. From reading your past posts, I believe what you prefer is stones with tendency for brightness (higher pavillion/low crown) vs fire, just as in your Tiffany. You may want to checkout stones with crown angle around 34 or less (BIC stones are with 32.5 and less) and pair them with steeper pavilions, especially since you don't like stones with deeper contrast. Also, checkout OEC stones - they're extremely sparkly due to the larger facets.

Checkout these videos to verify what you prefer

 

[16ocean]

All I can say is "bling-a-lisious"

 

[Miki Moto]

Some like larger tables and more white light return, and some like high crowns and smaller tables and more fire. From the AGS reports I have seen in the past, I think CBI more often has crown angles under 34.5 and WF has more that are 34.5+ than under.

Miki Moto, if you want lots of sparkles, skinny arrows (scintillate more at the expense of bolder flash) are not necessarily what you want. From reading your past posts, I believe what you prefer is stones with tendency for brightness (higher pavillion/low crown) vs fire, just as in your Tiffany. You may want to checkout stones with crown angle around 34 or less (BIC stones are with 32.5 and less) and pair them with steeper pavilions, especially since you don't like stones with deeper contrast.

@diamondseeker2006 @blueMA
You ladies are geniuses! I am sure you know I have struggled with this question of why I like the Tiffany (ideal only) more than my HOF (super ideal) without finding a clear answer. You ladies have solved it for me. I have spent the past hour looking at my two stones' specs, and yes... your above statements are exactly my problem. My beloved Tiffany stone has a larger table (57%) vs my dreaded HOF (53%). And my Tiffany crown angle is 33.7 vs my HOF which is 34.8. The Tiffany Pavillion is 41.28 vs. HOF 40.6.

So... maybe I can find two diamonds (for earrings) that fit within super ideal parameters but they will be on the edge of the super ideal proportions. They would be:
Table: 57
Crown: 34
Pavillion: 41
Would that be a goofy diamond? Or am I just better off getting an ideal (e.g. stick with Tiffany), but not super ideal? I'm not tied to Tiffany, especially not for earrings, but I am hung up now on getting two super ideal stones for earrings and trying to make it work.

Thank you for your posts! Super helpful! I hope others have benefited from this as well.

 

[Gussie]

The problem with what you're referring to as "ideal" is that GIA XXX is a huge range. Some GIA ideal may be similar to your Tiffany but a vast number of GIA XXX stones will be quite different. I would think that even Tiffany stones vary a lot. This is one of the reasons for the label "supe ideal", a set a strictly controlled parameters with very little variance.

 

[Miki Moto]

By the way, see my above post... how can my HOF be a super ideal with a table of 53? I thought the window was 54-57?

 

[blueMA]

@diamondseeker2006 @blueMA
You ladies are geniuses! I am sure you know I have struggled with this question of why I like the Tiffany (ideal only) more than my HOF (super ideal) without finding a clear answer. You ladies have solved it for me. I have spent the past hour looking at my two stones' specs, and yes... your above statements are exactly my problem. My beloved Tiffany stone has a larger table (57%) vs my dreaded HOF (53%). And my Tiffany crown angle is 33.7 vs my HOF which is 34.8. The Tiffany Pavillion is 41.28 vs. HOF 40.6.

So... maybe I can find two diamonds (for earrings) that fit within super ideal parameters but they will be on the edge of the super ideal proportions. They would be:
Table: 54
Crown: 34
Pavillion: 41
Would that be a goofy diamond? Or am I just better off getting an ideal (e.g. stick with Tiffany), but not super ideal? I'm not tied to Tiffany, especially not for earrings, but I am hung up now on getting two super ideal stones for earrings and trying to make it work.

Thank you for your posts! Super helpful! I hope others have benefited from this as well.

34/41 is a beautiful combo, but you won't find that combo through any "superideal" branded stones that tend to stay near Tolkowky ideal proportions around 34.5/40.75. Also, you have to be careful and find stones with high precision cut with optical symmetry near 41 and up, because you'll have more chance of finding stones with ring of death and table obstructions. You don't have to limit the table size to 54, and any up to 58 should be fine with the combo. If you contact any of the solid trade members on this board, they'll be able to source such stones for you. Also don't forget OEC - they're absolute firecrackers and I never would've chosen such cut until I saw them IRL.

 

[blueMA]

By the way, see my above post... how can my HOF be a super ideal with a table of 53? I thought the window was 54-57?

54-57 is more optimal, but you can still find awesome super-ideal H&As between 53-58.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

@diamondseeker2006 @blueMA
You ladies are geniuses! I am sure you know I have struggled with this question of why I like the Tiffany (ideal only) more than my HOF (super ideal) without finding a clear answer. You ladies have solved it for me. I have spent the past hour looking at my two stones' specs, and yes... your above statements are exactly my problem. My beloved Tiffany stone has a larger table (57%) vs my dreaded HOF (53%). And my Tiffany crown angle is 33.7 vs my HOF which is 34.8. The Tiffany Pavillion is 41.28 vs. HOF 40.6.

So... maybe I can find two diamonds (for earrings) that fit within super ideal parameters but they will be on the edge of the super ideal proportions. They would be:
Table: 57
Crown: 34
Pavillion: 41
Would that be a goofy diamond? Or am I just better off getting an ideal (e.g. stick with Tiffany), but not super ideal? I'm not tied to Tiffany, especially not for earrings, but I am hung up now on getting two super ideal stones for earrings and trying to make it work.

Thank you for your posts! Super helpful! I hope others have benefited from this as well.

CBI and WF ACA diamonds are both superideal and each diamond is different depending on it's cut. One brand is not "better" than the other. Your HoF diamond is cut differently in that it has that 53 table, and we almost never (or never) see a 53 table from CBI or WF. It does make sense to go 56-57 for a table on earrings because brightness is important in earrings. You can get better cut stones not going with Tiffany and the price is nice, too! I do like many iconic Tiffany jewelry pieces, but diamond studs are diamond studs and cut makes the difference in their beauty.

If you like skinnier arrows, the easiest way to shop for stones is to look for around 78 lower girdle facets as opposed to 76-77. Here's an example. If you look at the specs at the bottom of the page, you'll see lower girdle % at the bottom right.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3988015.htm

In reality, most people would be hard pressed to tell 76 from 78 in real life viewing because what we see is nothing like these magnified images! You don't see black arrows, either, unless there is obstruction. My studs are Whiteflash ACAs and there is nothing I'd change about them. I think they have around 56 table and 77 LGFs. They are very bright and perfect for studs. So I am just saying, don't get too hung up on the measurements. I personally wouldn't do a 53 table for studs, but 56-57 would be just fine. I'd match up table (within 1 %) and diameter on superideals and be done because they will look pretty much the same on the ears.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I'll add that those aren't great pictures, but my diamond studs just look like bright white balls on my ears because they reflect light so well.

 

[blueMA]

@Miki Moto You have another HOF with 56 table. Do you like that one better than the one with 53?

Here's my pair, 34/41 with 56 table on the right. The video doesn't capture anywhere near the full light performance IRL, of course.

 

[Miki Moto]

@blueMA @diamondseeker2006 I would swear you both are in the trade as you ladies know your stuff! But I am glad you are not in the trade as you can be so much more open and blunt about recommendations.

@blueMA I love the sparkle of your earrings. It has that "white sparkle" that I love and it does not have too much of that "black" contrast that I do not like (I hope I am describing it correctly). How does the 34/41 map into @diamondseeker2006 's 78 LGF because hers are very nice also. Does having a 34/41 translate into a 78 LGF?

@blueMA You have a good memory on my other HOF! Well, I can't tell you if I like the other one better because it's on its way to GIA now. Side story... I've been reading a thread here on PS about gradings and how grading may differ with GIA and AGS. I was curious, and I decided to un-mount my diamond earrings and send them to GIA. I just did that last Friday, so they should be back in 2-3 weeks. I don't have them here to compare, but I will certainly look at both again when they are sent back. Not that I am totally crazy un-mounting a stone just for the heck of it, but I figured while I look for my upgrade earrings, I may as well re-mount them and try the martini settings because my currently HOF earrings are the 4-prong in a tall basket which I do not like (these poor earrings get zero love... ).

@diamondseeker2006 I really like your 6-prong mountings. Are they also martinis? I assume since your studs are ACAs, are they the 6-prong platinum martinis I see on the WF website? Those are very pretty and look great on you. And your diamonds look so white too! 78 is the secret too!

Last question... do you think the size of the diamond affects the brightness and sparkle? For example, my dreaded HOF studs are 1.01ct each, and my Tiffany is 3.15ct. I am planning to upgrade my earrings to 2.0ct each (not sure though as I tried on a pair at a local jewelry store last Friday for size and they seemed a bit too in-your-face-on-the-edge-of-tacky big, at least for me, so maybe I will got down to 1.5ct). Will either of those sizes affect the bright sparkle and therefore I should change my 34/41, 78 thoughts?

Thank you again for your advice... it has been of tremendous value!

 

[blueMA]

How does the 34/41 map into @diamondseeker2006 's 78 LGF because hers are very nice also. Does having a 34/41 translate into a 78 LGF?

You can safely stay within the range of 75-80, and the arrows not be too skinny when cut correctly. The ones on the video are 80 (also had 75 with similar performance), and neither has skinny arrows, though many do at that length from what I've seen just as in the GOG video earlier. Mine are absent of any bad light leakage that you'll need to verify with Idealscope/ASET.

 

[blueMA]

By the way, you can see contrasts on my earrings as well, they're just not as pronounced as in the diamonds nearer 40.6 pavillion, so they tend to look brighter overall in most lighting. To add a kicker, the one on the left is 34.5/40.8 combo.

Here are some photos

 

[blueMA]

I am planning to upgrade my earrings to 2.0ct each (not sure though as I tried on a pair at a local jewelry store last Friday for size and they seemed a bit too in-your-face-on-the-edge-of-tacky big

LOL, I personally found 1 carats each stud = 2 total carats pair a bit overwhelming.
I tried 2 total carats and I felt they looked too gaudy on me, so I went with 1.5 total carats myself.
The size preference is very subjective though, and it also depends on the earlobe size.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

@diamondseeker2006 I really like your 6-prong mountings. Are they also martinis? I assume since your studs are ACAs, are they the 6-prong platinum martinis I see on the WF website? Those are very pretty and look great on you. And your diamonds look so white too! 78 is the secret too!

Last question... do you think the size of the diamond affects the brightness and sparkle? For example, my dreaded HOF studs are 1.01ct each, and my Tiffany is 3.15ct. I am planning to upgrade my earrings to 2.0ct each (not sure though as I tried on a pair at a local jewelry store last Friday for size and they seemed a bit too in-your-face-on-the-edge-of-tacky big, at least for me, so maybe I will got down to 1.5ct). Will either of those sizes affect the bright sparkle and therefore I should change my 34/41, 78 thoughts?

Thank you again for your advice... it has been of tremendous value!

I am happy if I can help you at all, because you have been a tremendous help to me on pearls!

My settings actually were custom and they are not martinis. I prefer a larger base than a martini base, because those tend to lean downward. People here who have the 6 prong martinis from WF usually just use jumbo backs to make them not lean. I think they are fine, and I am not sure custom is worth the extra cost.

Mine are crown settings. Here is a side view. I had always had 4 prong, low set basket settings like the Tiffany ones previous to these. WF special ordered the 4 prong basket settings for me previously.



I think if your ring stone is 3.15 cts, I'd personally aim for 1.6-1.9 cts each for the new studs. That is a great size, plus you avoid the price jump at 2 cts.

While these are at the larger end of that recommendation (and I have no idea of your preferences for color and clarity), this is a nice pair:

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=3905126,3905125

My LGFs are actually 77, which is the same as these. I don't consider them too big by any means. They ARE skinny compared to my ring diamond, which is in my avatar picture. Both diamonds have 56 range tables and 77 LGF, and I think that's a great combination! I don't think you need to worry about the angles in superideal stones if you are looking at table and LGF. I think 77-78 for LGF is fine, and those are not considered fat facets.

 

[blueMA]

I prefer a larger base than a martini base, because those tend to lean downward.

Yes, beware of most martini settings with very pointy ends because they tend to dig into ears. Mine are rounded at the base, but I paired them with larger diameter La Pousette earring backs so they don't lean down.

 

[erislynn]

The main differences on the arrow skinny/fat dark/light I've seen are more due to pavillion angle differences along with lower girdle length (longer, skinnier = less bold flashes). As pavillion goes up, the crown angle has to compensate and go down for ideal light return. The main difference you see is not due to brand differences. In fact, I tend to see more CBI stones with 40.8 pavillion, not 40.7 with varying lower girdle length, along with appropriate varying crown angles to stay within the AGS ideal sweet proportions. You can't say a brand is superior based on a very small sampling of stones with varying angles. More over, stones with the same exact proportions can perform quite differently IRL.

The main difference *I* see is due to brand difference. I am not the only one to say so. Many PS’ers have chimed in supporting the fact that CBI has a consistent high contrast look. There are just as many 40.8 vs 40.7 pavillion angles with CBI as you see in the variances in ACA. It depends on when you’re looking at the inventory and what of the other 3 C’s you’re looking for.

Furthermore, I do not have to submit any kind of multi-stone proof. This is a testimonial. Do you have a brand vs brand multi-stone double-blind controlled study to show here? If not, your statement is opinion just like mine.

I have never said CBI is superior or better. I have stated the differences I observed, what I appreciated in each, and what my preference is. The bias toward ACA on this forum is ridiculous. As soon as there is a dissenting opinion, people swoop in and try to invalidate it. Makes one think if there really is no brand difference, why the defensiveness?

 

[Miki Moto]

@erislynn @diamondseeker2006 @blueMA Thank you very much for your advice on my sparkly dilemma.... finally, it’s been solved. I told my husband about this thread last night, and he said this is too complicated for a tiny stone! And it is, but you ladies here have a ton of knowledge that you shared, so thank you again! I am going to call HPD and ask about their CBI cut program.

@erislynn Thank you again for creating this thread! As I said earlier... best thread!

 

[blueMA]

@erislynn @diamondseeker2006 @blueMA Thank you very much for your advice on my sparkly dilemma.... finally, it’s been solved. I told my husband about this thread last night, and he said this is too complicated for a tiny stone! And it is, but you ladies here have a ton of knowledge that you shared, so thank you again! I am going to call HPD and ask about their CBI cut program.

@erislynn Thank you again for creating this thread! As I said earlier... best thread!

We're so glad to help. Check out this thread about @Rhino's opinion on 41/34 combo, who is undoubtedly one of the top experts in the diamond trade.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/dark-vs-light-arrows.117679/#post-2037864

 

[blueMA]

The main difference *I* see is due to brand difference. I am not the only one to say so. Many PS’ers have chimed in supporting the fact that CBI has a consistent high contrast look. There are just as many 40.8 vs 40.7 pavillion angles with CBI as you see in the variances in ACA. It depends on when you’re looking at the inventory and what of the other 3 C’s you’re looking for.

Furthermore, I do not have to submit any kind of multi-stone proof. This is a testimonial. Do you have a brand vs brand multi-stone double-blind controlled study to show here? If not, your statement is opinion just like mine.

I have never said CBI is superior or better. I have stated the differences I observed, what I appreciated in each, and what my preference is. The bias toward ACA on this forum is ridiculous. As soon as there is a dissenting opinion, people swoop in and try to invalidate it. Makes one think if there really is no brand difference, why the defensiveness?

@erislynn I'm very happy for you that you found a stone that you personally love. I'm in no way bashing CBI, and I along with most prosumers on this board would agree that CBI consistently source, cut and deliver one of the best quality diamonds in the world. However, CBI does not have some magic formula for cutting MRB that other vendors aren't aware/capable of.

When consumers are looking for diamonds, they're trying to afford the best diamond they could afford under a budget. This is very exciting but also extremely stressful event. The reason Whiteflash often end up being referred here isn't because people are more loyal to the branded stones such as ACA. It ends up being that they tend to offer more H&A stone selections/inventory that are accessible under various desired minimum criteria under their budget caps. However, this does not mean that their precision cut stone are in anyway inferior to CBI, Brian Gavin Black, HOF, etc.

I personally don't prefer the stones I see on your video. I can immediately see that they'd score closer to 1 or below the HCA, and your CBI stone scores 0.8. HCA stones scoring below 1 tend to perform better for pendants and earrings and could be great choice for some people, but the shallower stones tend to suffer from head obstructions that I see on the video. See here for an illustration by Garry Holloway
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...hca-holloway-cut-advisor.240661/#post-4337343

People have very subjective preferences when it comes to diamonds between fire/dispersion/brilliance, and once you find your particular preference, it comes down to the cut precision and angles, not a specific brand.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I have never said CBI is superior or better. I have stated the differences I observed, what I appreciated in each, and what my preference is. The bias toward ACA on this forum is ridiculous. As soon as there is a dissenting opinion, people swoop in and try to invalidate it. Makes one think if there really is no brand difference, why the defensiveness?

Most PSers will defend their favorite vendors with their lives...

 

[Dancing Fire]

@erislynn @diamondseeker2006 @blueMA Thank you very much for your advice on my sparkly dilemma.... finally, it’s been solved. I told my husband about this thread last night, and he said this is too complicated for a tiny stone! And it is, but you ladies here have a ton of knowledge that you shared, so thank you again! I am going to call HPD and ask about their CBI cut program.

Wink is the man!