Different Looks of Super Ideal Stones

[katrina_33]

I know this has been touched on here and there in different threads, but wanted to hear everyone''s opinions...

Each of the different super ideal stones is supposed to have a somewhat different look/feel, correct? For example, I remember hearing that ACA''s have bigger, more firey flashes, whereas Superbcerts are smaller, more delicate sparkles? And Eightstars are known for exhibiting larger, more firey sparkles as well, right?

Can people weigh in on how these and other superideal RB''s look when compared to one another?

I am personally looking to emphasize fire and scintillation, and like larger/chunkier flashes of light.

Thanks!

 

[squirerad]

IMHO, I don't think that their is any difference in "flashes" and "sparkles" from one brand of superideal cuts to another. There was an excellent post a couple weeks ago showing spreadshits and tables of the various superideals. If I can recall correctly, there is no significant difference at the 95% confidence interval between 8*, ACA, and SuperbCert brands. So if I were you, I would just try to find the biggest size for the dollar with any of these (which kinda automatically rules out an 8* because of the markup).

squire

 

[katrina_33]

Another related question: Is there always a tradeoff between fire and brilliance? I am under the impression that this is the case.

If you want to maximize one, do you sacrifice a bit of the other? Really brilliant stones aren't able to show as much contrast or fire, correct?

Sorry for the million questions!

 

[pqcollectibles]

Actually, SuperIdealist's post was about the Spread of various branded and unbranded H&A's. Spread is the physical size/diameter of the diamond. What you see in normal viewing.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/whose-diamonds-look-biggest.16059/

A 0.6 and a 1.0 diamond can have the same spread if the 1.0 is a deep cut with an overly thick girdle.

White Flash actually cuts 2 lines of ACA's and I've seen both. Classic ACA's shimmer with lots of little sparklies and are very romantic. New Line ACA's give off big, bold flashes of light and color.

Generally speaking, brilliant diamonds show more white light/less fire, and firey diamonds show more fire/less white light. TIC diamonds are a good blend of both worlds, but the type of performance can vary from diamond to diamond. You can big, bold flashes of light and color, or lots of little sparklies. Depends on the crown and pavillion angles, and the minor facets alignment.

 

[katrina_33]

Is whiteflash planning to continue carrying both lines of ACA's, or are they phasing out the old in favor of the new? Can you tell from the diamond listing whether it is the old or new version?

Thanks!

 

[katrina_33]

----------------
On 6/22/2004 7:52:23 PM pqcollectibles wrote:

Actually, SuperIdealist's post was about the Spread of various branded and unbranded H&A's. Spread is the physical size/diameter of the diamond. What you see in normal viewing.


https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/whose-diamonds-look-biggest.16059/


A 0.6 and a 1.0 diamond can have the same spread if the 1.0 is a deep cut with an overly thick girdle.


White Flash actually cuts 2 lines of ACA's and I've seen both. Classic ACA's shimmer with lots of little sparklies and are very romantic. New Line ACA's give off big, bold flashes of light and color.


Generally speaking, brilliant diamonds show more white light/less fire, and firey diamonds show more fire/less white light. TIC diamonds are a good blend of both worlds, but the type of performance can vary from diamond to diamond. You can big, bold flashes of light and color, or lots of little sparklies. Depends on the crown and pavillion angles, and the minor facets alignment.

----------------

PQ Collectibles, you seem to prefer the earlier ACA's that have a more delicate sparkle to them, correct? Just curious!

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 6/22/2004 11:14:34 PM katrina_33 wrote:

Is whiteflash planning to continue carrying both lines of ACA's, or are they phasing out the old in favor of the new? Can you tell from the diamond listing whether it is the old or new version?

Thanks! ----------------

katrina_33,

i think they're keeping both versions. the easiest way to tell the difference is by the IS scope picture. the old version has white leakage around the edge like today's top ideal cut. the new version IS scope picture looks completely red more like the 8*.

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 6/22/2004 11:32:55 PM vtigger86 wrote:




the easiest way to tell the difference is by the IS scope picture. the old version has white leakage around the edge like today's top ideal cut. the new version IS scope picture looks completely red more like the 8*.
----------------

actually from what PQ has said in the past..that is not true. the no-leakage look is not consistent to all the new ACA's...I never really figured out what the small nuances are between old and new but it's not just about the IS image.

in terms of flashes and sparkles, I don't have an ACA...I have an Almost ACA which didn't make the cut but the IS image is screaming and the numbers are stellar...it throws off tons of small myriad flashes mostly. my husband has an ACA with a similarly amazing IS image and top notch numbers and it throws off what seem to be larger sparkles at times, but the differences are hard to really point out to be honest. both are amazing.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

----------------
On 6/22/2004 5:38:52 PM katrina_33 wrote:

Another related question: Is there always a tradeoff between fire and brilliance? I am under the impression that this is the case.

If you want to maximize one, do you sacrifice a bit of the other? Really brilliant stones aren't able to show as much contrast or fire, correct?

Sorry for the million questions!----------------

Katrina,

This is a popular misconception.

It is correct that in bright office lighting environment, with a very brilliant stone, the fire is hidden by the brilliance. Therefore, with a less brilliant stone in that same bright lighting, you could possibly see more fire, and therefore many think that there is a trade-off.

Take the same stones to an environment with less light (candle-lit restaurant, under a tree, even the window-seat of a plane with light just coming from one side). The well-cut diamond will show much more fire than the other one.

To sum it up: it depends on the lighting-environment.

Live long,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Also contrast is a different item.

Your stone consists of a high number of light windows (not facets, more like divisions between parts of a diamond, being lit, partially lit or not).

The better the contrast is, the clearer the distinction between such a light window returning light (being open) or not (being closed).

The more defined the contrast, the better the scintillation and the contrast-in-motion, because of light windows constantly and instantaneously opening and closing.

Live long,

 

[pqcollectibles]

----------------
On 6/22/2004 11:14:34 PM katrina_33 wrote:

Is whiteflash planning to continue carrying both lines of ACA's, or are they phasing out the old in favor of the new? Can you tell from the diamond listing whether it is the old or new version?

Thanks! ----------------

As far as I know, WF will continue to cut both ACA's.

While I loved the Classic, I went with a New Line. It was a tough choice, but ultimately the bigger, bolder flashes of light and color won out with me.

Thank you, Paul, for explaining about the lighting and diamond performance.

 

[katrina_33]

Thanks everyone!

 

[niceice]

We don't think that different brands of super ideal cut diamonds necessarily offer different levels of brilliance, dispersion and scintillation as much as different combinations of crown and pavilion angle measurements do... As with most of the "live inventory" dealers here on PS, we focus on selecting diamonds that offer as much of a balance of brilliance and dispersion as possible, however some people prefer more brilliance than dispersion and vice versa, at which time we look for a diamond that caters to the preference of that particular client... As previously noted, the lighting conditions used to evaluate a diamond have a LOT to do with the visual performance, but in the end it will be the proportions and more correctly the combination of proportions that will control what you see... Of course, there is one more factor which is often overlooked and that is the fact that diamonds are a naturally occuring crystal (lab grown not being considered) and sometimes Mother Nature "flips the old bird" at the cutter during the production process and doesn't allow the crystal to fully cooperate with the cutter regardless of the proportions which is why we still recommend working with a professional and not buying by the numbers alone

 

[JC]

What "IF" there were many retailers out there in the stores and online with the Internet companies that offered near identical "ideal" round cut diamonds that were GIA or AGS graded? What "IF" we sold the exact same quality diamonds for different prices? These round diamonds achieved the proper depth and table percentages as well as the crown and pavilion heights and angles. What "IF" this were the case? Wouldn't that mean that each company just used a different marketing strategy or form of advertisement with a nominal "ideal" brand using a new creative catchy name? That would mean that we all sell or have access to the same quality diamonds though. Well, if that were the case than "name brand" wouldn't matter anymore. The purchase of a diamond would then depend souly upon the ability of the company to meet the needs of their customer. I guess at that point everything would just boil down to customer service, education about what you are purchasing, a possibility of seeing the diamond before purchase has been made, a good strong return policy with full reimbursement if not satisfied, not too mention nice fair prices along with many other benefits that the company could offer their customer. What can I say, this is just one man's opinion. Just a nice deep thought for the day for everyone to consider....

 

[Mara]

My stone is the perfect example of buying non-branded 'perfection' in my opinion. My stone is a WhiteFlash Expert Selection, hand-selected for best value. If you are familiar with WF's ACA line, you will quickly see from the numbers, specs, and IS images that many of these stones (in my opinion) were slated to be cut for ACA...but something went wrong. Something is probably something so miniscule that human eyes (aka not Brian's!) cannot pick it up, but these stones did not make the cut. If you sift through the ES on the WF site, you will see many stones that to you or me, the average joe who knows something small about diamonds, they look absolutely stellar. And the price is great too. They are unbranded H&A's...but in every other way these things appear to shine! My stone has what appear to me to be great looking H&A's, it has a virtually perfect IS image, great specs, angles, etc...and when I compare it to me husband's small ACA with just as 'perfect' (to my eyes remember) numbers, images, etc), they look the same to us~! He jokes around that he has the 'best stone' in the house, but honestly....mine is a sight to behold as well. So there are great stones that are unbranded out there, as well as those who have that hard-to-quantify 'extra touch' that gets them into the top-notch brands.