FICs

[:)]

Curious - anyone currently posting on this forum have a FIC? Did you find it by accident, or did you specifically pursue it? I think Regular Guy posted that he had a FIC he found by accident, but I could not locate a photo of it.

There was a mention on prior posts a year or so ago, that with the change in cut standards that FICs would become more common (due to prior being ''dinged'' for their cut) - are people starting to see more of them? Garry had mentioned on a post that he was seeing 1 in 2000 at one time. (Garry, if you see this, would you comment if you have noted an increase?)

I saw an AGS 000 FIC while perusing diamonds. Crown angle was 35.6, got a FIC on the Holloway.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/1/2006 4:35:12 PM
Author:
Curious - anyone currently posting on this forum have a FIC? Did you find it by accident, or did you specifically pursue it? I think Regular Guy posted that he had a FIC he found by accident, but I could not locate a photo of it.

There was a mention on prior posts a year or so ago, that with the change in cut standards that FICs would become more common (due to prior being ''dinged'' for their cut) - are people starting to see more of them? Garry had mentioned on a post that he was seeing 1 in 2000 at one time. (Garry, if you see this, would you comment if you have noted an increase?)

I saw an AGS 000 FIC while perusing diamonds. Crown angle was 35.6, got a FIC on the Holloway.

that''s funny cause I read all of those same threads! LOL I also read a post in one of them that made me want to respond so badly but I couldn''t because it was closed... something about how fire distracted from the real beauty of a diamond...

 

[Regular Guy]

Scott''s got a pretty good set of ideas here...or at least it worked for him.

I should take a picture of my wife''s ring some time, I''m sure, but hate making her self conscious about it.

 

[:)]

bumping my own post b/c I see Garry posting right now!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

to

Last year AGS had extended thier proportions well into FIC territory - but unfortunately GIA do not go far enough - so the incentive for cutters to make FIC''s is stymed a bit more than I had hoped.

The GIA only goes down to 40.6 degrees and 36.5 in smallish table sizes. This makes a nice FIC - but why they never went lower in pavilion angles and higher in crown angles is of course the main study that I am involved in at present.

It is interesting that after a few chats at the GIA Symposium that they really do not want to purse the topic further. They did their study. They are finished. But we will not let that happen, will we?

I see one manufacturer producing a few - but based on their prices - they do not think it is an interesting business.

The point to this is that these stones have verticle spread - i.e. they stick out of a ring heaps.
They also have loads of fire and scintillation.
But they loose a little diameter spread.

Check out this model with its dimensions and proportions on the Gem adviser link below

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/3/2006 1:15:56 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
to

Last year AGS had extended thier proportions well into FIC territory - but unfortunately GIA do not go far enough - so the incentive for cutters to make FIC''s is stymed a bit more than I had hoped.

The GIA only goes down to 40.6 degrees and 36.5 in smallish table sizes. This makes a nice FIC - but why they never went lower in pavilion angles and higher in crown angles is of course the main study that I am involved in at present.

It is interesting that after a few chats at the GIA Symposium that they really do not want to purse the topic further. They did their study. They are finished. But we will not let that happen, will we?

I see one manufacturer producing a few - but based on their prices - they do not think it is an interesting business.

The point to this is that these stones have verticle spread - i.e. they stick out of a ring heaps.
They also have loads of fire and scintillation.
But they loose a little diameter spread.

Check out this model with its dimensions and proportions on the Gem adviser link below

yes, well for many women it''s *all* about the spread and very little about performance and for many women it''s all about how bright it seems and color is meaningless. I have a pair of earrings like that... they''re very white and I used to think they were very nice and now I''ve seen how complex a diamond can look and I''m like ewww LOL Ignorance can produce a different desire and many women are all about white and big.

I''d gladly lose spread for FIC in a round, but in doing so you''re losing brilliance too, right? hence your old adage about fire killing brilliance or something? LOL

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/3/2006 1:19:51 AM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 9/3/2006 1:15:56 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
to

Last year AGS had extended thier proportions well into FIC territory - but unfortunately GIA do not go far enough - so the incentive for cutters to make FIC''s is stymed a bit more than I had hoped.

The GIA only goes down to 40.6 degrees and 36.5 in smallish table sizes. This makes a nice FIC - but why they never went lower in pavilion angles and higher in crown angles is of course the main study that I am involved in at present.

It is interesting that after a few chats at the GIA Symposium that they really do not want to purse the topic further. They did their study. They are finished. But we will not let that happen, will we?

I see one manufacturer producing a few - but based on their prices - they do not think it is an interesting business.

The point to this is that these stones have verticle spread - i.e. they stick out of a ring heaps.
They also have loads of fire and scintillation.
But they loose a little diameter spread.

Check out this model with its dimensions and proportions on the Gem adviser link below

yes, well for many women it''s *all* about the spread and very little about performance and for many women it''s all about how bright it seems and color is meaningless. I have a pair of earrings like that... they''re very white and I used to think they were very nice and now I''ve seen how complex a diamond can look and I''m like ewww LOL Ignorance can produce a different desire and many women are all about white and big.

I''d gladly lose spread for FIC in a round, but in doing so you''re losing brilliance too, right? hence your old adage about fire killing brilliance or something? LOL

Cehrabehra open the Gem Adviser file and hit the green play button - make a movie and compare it to this stone - a standard Tolkowsky with 57% table of the same weight.

Play them together side by side and look from the other side of the room - lights on - lights off etc

The FIC looses a little brightness - but does make up for it in fire

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/3/2006 1:39:04 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Cehrabehra open the Gem Adviser file and hit the green play button - make a movie and compare it to this stone - a standard Tolkowsky with 57% table of the same weight.

Play them together side by side and look from the other side of the room - lights on - lights off etc

The FIC looses a little brightness - but does make up for it in fire

Okay, I watched them side by side and I''d say the FIC gains more in fire than it loses in brilliance... however I also notice the LGF is a lower % than on the first .gem file as well... how much is that contributing?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

i made the lower girdle facets at what i thoght was optimal for each proportion set.
Different table size and pavilion angles require different LG''s lengths

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/3/2006 3:18:55 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
i made the lower girdle facets at what i thoght was optimal for each proportion set.
Different table size and pavilion angles require different LG''s lengths

LOL! The info you need to know to get what you really want can be staggering!! LOL Okay so I''ve gone to your HCA and plugged in a 53% table and others and a 35+% pav angles and played with the numbers to get FIC ratings... but do you have a chart with preferred LG lengths also??

What would be so un-optimal if you had a FIC with 85% LG or a BIC with 75%?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

that looks ok C

http://www.ideal-scope.com/manuf_fine_tuning.asp a bit of table size data - I think you have the idea now though

 

[:)]

Darn, I am having trouble downloading the files - I need to have someone else take a peek b/c I have tried two different computers and am having bad luck.

What do you think about
table 55.4
depth 62.2
cr angle 35.6
p angle 40.4
p depth 42.4%
c height 16.1%

Thanks!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/3/2006 3:24:24 AM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 9/3/2006 3:18:55 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
i made the lower girdle facets at what i thoght was optimal for each proportion set.
Different table size and pavilion angles require different LG's lengths

LOL! The info you need to know to get what you really want can be staggering!! LOL Okay so I've gone to your HCA and plugged in a 53% table and others and a 35+% pav angles and played with the numbers to get FIC ratings... but do you have a chart with preferred LG lengths also??

What would be so un-optimal if you had a FIC with 85% LG or a BIC with 75%?

fic's and bic's both do better with longer lgf% but 85% is getting out there... 80% would be more normal.
The reason is both with short lgf% have too much head shadow = relect too much of the surroundings instead of returning light = too much dark area in relation to the bright areas in some lighting.

in short:
A short lgf% on a fic makes the lack of brilliance worse and on a bic reduces brilliance which is why you went with those angles for in the first place.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/3/2006 4:45:45 PM
Author:
Darn, I am having trouble downloading the files - I need to have someone else take a peek b/c I have tried two different computers and am having bad luck.

What do you think about
table 55.4
depth 62.2
cr angle 35.6
p angle 40.4
p depth 42.4%
c height 16.1%

Thanks!

kewl
technically a 36-36.5 degree crown would be a better match to 40.4 and 40.6 a better match to 35.5 but its not that great a difference as long as the LGF% is on the long side.
You lose a little brilliance close up with the shallower pavilion.

 

[:)]

Date: 9/3/2006 5:49:35 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/3/2006 4:45:45 PM
Author:
Darn, I am having trouble downloading the files - I need to have someone else take a peek b/c I have tried two different computers and am having bad luck.

What do you think about
table 55.4
depth 62.2
cr angle 35.6
p angle 40.4
p depth 42.4%
c height 16.1%

Thanks!

kewl
technically a 36-36.5 degree crown would be a better match to 40.4 and 40.6 a better match to 35.5 but its not that great a difference as long as the LGF% is on the long side.
You lose a little brilliance close up with the shallower pavilion.

Thanks for your honesty, we will likely pass on this one - it was running a bit higher than we really wanted to spend, but we were considering spending the extra if it was truly going to be worth it for the fire - if the angles aren''t perfectly ideal for it, then I don''t think it is worth the extra $ and risk of it possibly not living up to expectation.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/3/2006 10:11:30 PM
Author:

Date: 9/3/2006 5:49:35 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/3/2006 4:45:45 PM
Author:
Darn, I am having trouble downloading the files - I need to have someone else take a peek b/c I have tried two different computers and am having bad luck.

What do you think about
table 55.4
depth 62.2
cr angle 35.6
p angle 40.4
p depth 42.4%
c height 16.1%

Thanks!

kewl
technically a 36-36.5 degree crown would be a better match to 40.4 and 40.6 a better match to 35.5 but its not that great a difference as long as the LGF% is on the long side.
You lose a little brilliance close up with the shallower pavilion.

Thanks for your honesty, we will likely pass on this one - it was running a bit higher than we really wanted to spend, but we were considering spending the extra if it was truly going to be worth it for the fire - if the angles aren''t perfectly ideal for it, then I don''t think it is worth the extra $ and risk of it possibly not living up to expectation.

Storm''s a pretty sharp tack, but frankly I''m not sure where he''s coming from on this advice. It may be more than superstition, for example, but especially since you''ve presented no data about minor facets anyway (lgf, etc.), I would think the 36.5 yielding lower qualitative scores on the HCA (i.e. two vg vs one), would be inferior to the angles at hand. That a 36 degree crown angle yields .9 over .8, by itself, shouldn''t really be a cause to run away (picture Knights of the Holy Grail, please!). Storm''s recent so called conversion to a believer in the HCA, with the qualifier that what''s behind the numbers is important, leaves me to seek a greater understanding behind what''s behind his eval. I''d be reluctant to lay blame to his eval...I just don''t understand it...yet.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/3/2006 10:11:30 PM
Author:

Date: 9/3/2006 5:49:35 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/3/2006 4:45:45 PM
Author:
Darn, I am having trouble downloading the files - I need to have someone else take a peek b/c I have tried two different computers and am having bad luck.

What do you think about
table 55.4
depth 62.2
cr angle 35.6
p angle 40.4
p depth 42.4%
c height 16.1%

Thanks!

kewl
technically a 36-36.5 degree crown would be a better match to 40.4 and 40.6 a better match to 35.5 but its not that great a difference as long as the LGF% is on the long side.
You lose a little brilliance close up with the shallower pavilion.

Thanks for your honesty, we will likely pass on this one - it was running a bit higher than we really wanted to spend, but we were considering spending the extra if it was truly going to be worth it for the fire - if the angles aren't perfectly ideal for it, then I don't think it is worth the extra $ and risk of it possibly not living up to expectation.

fic's aren't for everyone and for someone considering one especially if they are going to stretch the budget to do so needs to see it in person before making the final commitment.
Iv seen one and it was kewl but not something id buy for a ring I like near bic's and bic's better in a ring but that's my eyes/mind /opinion.
For a pendant Id buy a fic in a heartbeat :}
Depending on whats in the averages and what the lgf% is that one could be a kicken diamond.
Id consider it myself but I don't think Id stretch my budget over it and would see it in person with a return policy or at an appraisers before setting it.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/3/2006 10:23:45 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 9/3/2006 10:11:30 PM
Author:

Date: 9/3/2006 5:49:35 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/3/2006 4:45:45 PM
Author:
Darn, I am having trouble downloading the files - I need to have someone else take a peek b/c I have tried two different computers and am having bad luck.

What do you think about
table 55.4
depth 62.2
cr angle 35.6
p angle 40.4
p depth 42.4%
c height 16.1%

Thanks!

kewl
technically a 36-36.5 degree crown would be a better match to 40.4 and 40.6 a better match to 35.5 but its not that great a difference as long as the LGF% is on the long side.
You lose a little brilliance close up with the shallower pavilion.

Thanks for your honesty, we will likely pass on this one - it was running a bit higher than we really wanted to spend, but we were considering spending the extra if it was truly going to be worth it for the fire - if the angles aren''t perfectly ideal for it, then I don''t think it is worth the extra $ and risk of it possibly not living up to expectation.

Storm''s a pretty sharp tack, but frankly I''m not sure where he''s coming from on this advice. It may be more than superstition, for example, but especially since you''ve presented no data about minor facets anyway (lgf, etc.), I would think the 36.5 yielding lower qualitative scores on the HCA (i.e. two vg vs one), would be inferior to the angles at hand. That a 36 degree crown angle yields .9 over .8, by itself, shouldn''t really be a cause to run away (picture Knights of the Holy Grail, please!). Storm''s recent so called conversion to a believer in the HCA, with the qualifier that what''s behind the numbers is important, leaves me to seek a greater understanding behind what''s behind his eval. I''d be reluctant to lay blame to his eval...I just don''t understand it...yet.

got about 3 weeks RG?
Its not easy...
As simple as I can put it.... 40.6 and 41 are soft lines in the sand that you dont cross without careful evaluation of the crown angles, minor facets and whats in the averages.
34-41.2-long lgf% == kicken diamond
34.8-41.2-any lgf% == steep/deep with leakage under the table.

34-40.5 == shallow/shallow with darkness when viewed close and a short lgf% makes it worse and a long lgf% less so.
36-40.5-long lgf% == kicken fic

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/3/2006 11:40:33 PM
Author: strmrdr

fic''s aren''t for everyone and for someone considering one especially if they are going to stretch the budget to do so needs to see it in person before making the final commitment.
Iv seen one and it was kewl but not something id buy for a ring I like near bic''s and bic''s better in a ring but that''s my eyes/mind /opinion.
For a pendant Id buy a fic in a heartbeat :}
Depending on whats in the averages and what the lgf% is that one could be a kicken diamond.
Id consider it myself but I don''t think Id stretch my budget over it.

Okay I understand this is a question of personal preference - but why do so many diamond experts (counting you in there storm) have a distaste for firey diamonds? Old Miner has said several times (I''m paraphrasing) that they take away from the better qualities of a diamond... and I''m left thinking, well, what are they? whiteness? I mean seriously... for me the fire means a lot... if brightness and shape were all I was going for this diamond I''ve bought would do the trick, especially now that I''ve allowed it to get a bit dirty ala Mara''s comment that her stone was whiter when dirty and this one is LOL Anyway... what does fire take away from you storm? What is it about the colored bling that makes you go... naaahhhh and what exactly is it that you prefer instead? Just a circle of white? or what?

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/3/2006 11:52:54 PM
Author: strmrdr
got about 3 weeks RG?

Sorry, but maybe you could just do this on one foot?

That is...I''ve shown you mine, now you show me yours (if you have a proof text).

If it''s just experience, observation, and memory, god bless. Alternately, we''ve just moved, and I can''t haven''t yet fished out my copy of diamond calc (though, truth be told...not sure my reading of it would satisfy...as you may appreciate by reviewing comments in this thread, also in FAQs). So, is diamond calc effectively a source document?

Just point me to some sort of reference on this, if you can. I''m not disputing the substance, yet.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/4/2006 12:15:17 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 9/3/2006 11:52:54 PM
Author: strmrdr
got about 3 weeks RG?

Sorry, but maybe you could just do this on one foot?

That is...I''ve shown you mine, now you show me yours (if you have a proof text).

If it''s just experience, observation, and memory, god bless. Alternately, we''ve just moved, and I can''t haven''t yet fished out my copy of diamond calc (though, truth be told...not sure my reading of it would satisfy...as you may appreciate by reviewing comments in this thread, also in FAQs). So, is diamond calc effectively a source document?

Just point me to some sort of reference on this, if you can. I''m not disputing the substance, yet.

https://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/files/exideal1.pdf

It isnt perfect some of the ags0 candidate ranges aren''t listed and AGS has some specific combos that get 0 that would be dots on the chart not squares. But the ranges we are talking about here look right but the lgf% could move some combos in and out also so don''t take it too serious.

go down to 55% table check out the blue and red boxes which are AGS0 candidates at 40.6 and 40.4 pavilion angles.
then check the 56% table boxes since this one splits the difference.
The why of it is far more complicated....

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/3/2006 11:55:50 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 9/3/2006 11:40:33 PM
Author: strmrdr

fic''s aren''t for everyone and for someone considering one especially if they are going to stretch the budget to do so needs to see it in person before making the final commitment.
Iv seen one and it was kewl but not something id buy for a ring I like near bic''s and bic''s better in a ring but that''s my eyes/mind /opinion.
For a pendant Id buy a fic in a heartbeat :}
Depending on whats in the averages and what the lgf% is that one could be a kicken diamond.
Id consider it myself but I don''t think Id stretch my budget over it.

Okay I understand this is a question of personal preference - but why do so many diamond experts (counting you in there storm) have a distaste for firey diamonds? Old Miner has said several times (I''m paraphrasing) that they take away from the better qualities of a diamond... and I''m left thinking, well, what are they? whiteness? I mean seriously... for me the fire means a lot... if brightness and shape were all I was going for this diamond I''ve bought would do the trick, especially now that I''ve allowed it to get a bit dirty ala Mara''s comment that her stone was whiter when dirty and this one is LOL Anyway... what does fire take away from you storm? What is it about the colored bling that makes you go... naaahhhh and what exactly is it that you prefer instead? Just a circle of white? or what?

I love fiery diamonds.. if they are asschers..
in rounds I like them more towards the brilliant side.
The difference is really hard to put into words....
Let me describe my wifey2b''s diamond which is in my favorite range of course :}
In direct sunlight it is a fireball dancing with color.
In bright fluorescent lighting and regular light bulbs it puts out a brilliant cone of white light that you can spotlight on the wall across the room looking at it directing that beam into your eyes dazzles your eyes... the you start to move it and the light dances like hundreds of twinkling stars as the scintillation comes into play.
Even in dim light the diamond lights up white and bright.

Brian of WF fame talks of visual balance and that''s really what it is about but each of the experts puts that balance point at a slightly different place. No one diamond can be everything in every lighting condition but a super-ideal round cut comes closest and within that there are various personalities or balance points if you will.
Some people will see minor variations and some wont notice even a large change in personality and many people wont even realise they are seeing it. They see 2 or more diamonds and one will speak to them more than another but they dont know why.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/4/2006 1:30:17 AM
Author: strmrdr

https://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/files/exideal1.pdf

It isnt perfect some of the ags0 candidate ranges aren''t listed and AGS has some specific combos that get 0 that would be dots on the chart not squares. But the ranges we are talking about here look right but the lgf% could move some combos in and out also so don''t take it too serious.

go down to 55% table check out the blue and red boxes which are AGS0 candidates at 40.6 and 40.4 pavilion angles.
then check the 56% table boxes since this one splits the difference.
The why of it is far more complicated....

Thanks for the link, Storm. I looked at both charts. Then a ran the HCA a couple of different times, and took advantage of that tool, on this very board, which takes a whole lot of the work out, does the graphic part for you, and everything. The X really always turns up inside the AGS0 box. Even changing the table to 56!

Of course, you don''t know what you don''t know. If your point is that minor facets could throw the diamond out...that is true in this case, and possibly, in very many cases. If you want to say you should always stay away from the edge, this too is a reasonable enough point. But, that really didn''t seem to be the point you were making...which was that, even in optimized conditions, these angles weren''t quite right...I still don''t see it. Do you?

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/4/2006 1:53:56 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/3/2006 11:55:50 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 9/3/2006 11:40:33 PM
Author: strmrdr

fic''s aren''t for everyone and for someone considering one especially if they are going to stretch the budget to do so needs to see it in person before making the final commitment.
Iv seen one and it was kewl but not something id buy for a ring I like near bic''s and bic''s better in a ring but that''s my eyes/mind /opinion.
For a pendant Id buy a fic in a heartbeat :}
Depending on whats in the averages and what the lgf% is that one could be a kicken diamond.
Id consider it myself but I don''t think Id stretch my budget over it.

Okay I understand this is a question of personal preference - but why do so many diamond experts (counting you in there storm) have a distaste for firey diamonds? Old Miner has said several times (I''m paraphrasing) that they take away from the better qualities of a diamond... and I''m left thinking, well, what are they? whiteness? I mean seriously... for me the fire means a lot... if brightness and shape were all I was going for this diamond I''ve bought would do the trick, especially now that I''ve allowed it to get a bit dirty ala Mara''s comment that her stone was whiter when dirty and this one is LOL Anyway... what does fire take away from you storm? What is it about the colored bling that makes you go... naaahhhh and what exactly is it that you prefer instead? Just a circle of white? or what?

I love fiery diamonds.. if they are asschers..
in rounds I like them more towards the brilliant side.
The difference is really hard to put into words....
Let me describe my wifey2b''s diamond which is in my favorite range of course :}
In direct sunlight it is a fireball dancing with color.
In bright fluorescent lighting and regular light bulbs it puts out a brilliant cone of white light that you can spotlight on the wall across the room looking at it directing that beam into your eyes dazzles your eyes... the you start to move it and the light dances like hundreds of twinkling stars as the scintillation comes into play.
Even in dim light the diamond lights up white and bright.

Brian of WF fame talks of visual balance and that''s really what it is about but each of the experts puts that balance point at a slightly different place. No one diamond can be everything in every lighting condition but a super-ideal round cut comes closest and within that there are various personalities or balance points if you will.
Some people will see minor variations and some wont notice even a large change in personality and many people wont even realise they are seeing it. They see 2 or more diamonds and one will speak to them more than another but they dont know why.

thank you storm, I think you nailed it with the differing points of balance... it''s interesting to me that garry and david and others place so much on brilliance (then again that''s what the idealscope is all about - right?) but the way you talk about balance makes sense. To each their own, most will find balance somewhere in the middle and some toward one extreme or the other plus trends could tip one more in vogue than the other. Color could be viewed as tacky, all white could be viewed as boring LOL Who knows what makes people tick sometimes lol

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/4/2006 2:06:30 AM
Author: Cehrabehra
thank you storm, I think you nailed it with the differing points of balance... it''s interesting to me that garry and david and others place so much on brilliance (then again that''s what the idealscope is all about - right?) but the way you talk about balance makes sense. To each their own, most will find balance somewhere in the middle and some toward one extreme or the other plus trends could tip one more in vogue than the other. Color could be viewed as tacky, all white could be viewed as boring LOL Who knows what makes people tick sometimes lol

Both size and quality?

Quality only?

 

[Mara]

personally i think that the right superideal or ideal stone can display something similar to the amazing look of a FIC in the right lighting situations. just like in the right lighting situations, a super ideal or an ideal can display the same great white light properties of a BIC. that''s why i love the TIC''s so much. to me they are the best of all the worlds combined. i don''t want a diamond that JUST shows white light mostly, or JUST shows colored light mostly. to me the blend of the two is the real prize. in every lighting situation my diamond acts differently. i am still surprised sometimes when we go to somewhere like a new restaurant, or even catching the diamond at an angle from kitchen light flowing into the family room randomly or something, i will stop and go wow that looks stunning. to me a well-cut diamond is like a beauty chameleon. you never know when it is going to take your breath away. being clean or dirty also offers visual viewing variety as well, my diamond does not look the same clean as dirty in the car, or outside. even a dirty pavilion and a clean table offers a whole other set of ''looks''. it''s pretty intriguing.

 

[:)]

This has been very educational. In my case I guess I was considering a FIC b/c I have diamond earrings from Tiffanys that are so... white sparkly. No fire... looking at firey diamonds seems to make my white sparkly ones seem boring, although I have never knowingly seen an actual FIC in person. I assume the earrings are well cut b/c they are from Tiffany''s, but I have come to realize that I love looking at fire (are they maybe total extreme bics since they are just sparkly white??). They sparkle well and seem to have nice scintillation, just no fire

If I read the AGS report correctly on this FIC it appears it actually has the the LGF as 79 (it actually has a 79 listed on the lower and a 51 on the ugf). I had not seen them listing the LGF or UGF on the AGS DQDs, and wonder if the vendor added it to the DQD for consumer info?

I also had run it through the Holloway with both table sizes and it had come up in the AGS range each time, with an ex, ex, ex, vg for spread, although the AGS had given it a 000 already (I was just curious where it appeared on the Holloway).

I had noticed that price wise it was towards the higher range of what we were commonly seeing (although not at the most, and that pricescope discount is very nice!), and thought it was likely b/c FICs were not very common, although I wanted to make sure that it would be worth it. I am just sort of a person who doesn''t spend more than I need to, unless it gets something neat that we would not otherwise get, and I thought perhaps the interesting fire might be worth it, but I don''t think we will risk it.

It is too bad that GIA still dings the FICS - it would be nice to offer more consumer choice and make them more common. Obviously as many have mentioned, everyone has varying tastes from completely white to a mixture to very firey. If there were more out there for people to see, then maybe more people would find that they actually prefer more fire!

 

[:)]

Date: 9/4/2006 2:45:05 AM
Author: Mara
personally i think that the right superideal or ideal stone can display something similar to the amazing look of a FIC in the right lighting situations. just like in the right lighting situations, a super ideal or an ideal can display the same great white light properties of a BIC. that''s why i love the TIC''s so much. to me they are the best of all the worlds combined. i don''t want a diamond that JUST shows white light mostly, or JUST shows colored light mostly. to me the blend of the two is the real prize. in every lighting situation my diamond acts differently. i am still surprised sometimes when we go to somewhere like a new restaurant, or even catching the diamond at an angle from kitchen light flowing into the family room randomly or something, i will stop and go wow that looks stunning. to me a well-cut diamond is like a beauty chameleon. you never know when it is going to take your breath away. being clean or dirty also offers visual viewing variety as well, my diamond does not look the same clean as dirty in the car, or outside. even a dirty pavilion and a clean table offers a whole other set of ''looks''. it''s pretty intriguing.

I missed this post while I was typing! I think you make an excellent point - I may have just been trying to go too far in the opposite direction with my OCD on this!

 

[Mara]

i think that in general it's easy to think oh well i love fire so that means i should get a FIC. or i want the diamond to be really white and bright so that means i should look for a BIC. but i think that in reality, what many people really want is a super performing TIC, but they don't realize that. you 'sacrifice' some brilliance for fire or vice versa, so people think that they have to choose one or the other....i think the whole TIC/BIC/FIC terminology is confusing to newbies too. if i came in here and saw that i'd think oh i have to choose one, well okay i like fire so i'll get a FIC. without really knowing what it meant.

also, yes if you have a diamond that exhibits one type of look, you tend to want to see the opposite side. my original e-ring was very white brilliant, it looked how my existing stone does when it's really dirty, but that stone looked like it all the time. just a kind of sparkly white blob. hardly any fire. so of course when i decided to start over, i was like well i want lots of FIRE this time! because i felt starved for fire. but lucky for me i realized that the right TIC will have BOTH fire and brilliance and that was really what i was looking for. a nice blend of both...visible in different lighting situations. i'd be really bummed if i had gone ahead and found a FIC and then realized i was just as unhappy with it's 'one face' as i was with the BIC i had. since then i've had a few stones and each time it reinforces the fact for me that the right TIC is what i want. i would totally consider a BIC for a pendant, because it would allow for more spread and less 'scrutiny' but on the other hand i'm such a TIC whore now, i doubt i'd really 'settle' for anything else...unless it was an OEC or something where you are specifically going for that kind of look by the cut of stone you are buying. but a modern RB...TIC all the way for me.

 

[solange]

If I recall from your previous post,you are loooking for a large stone. If you limit yourself in size,color, and clariy and want an excellent cut as well, you would probably be eliminating many very beautiful stones by limiting yourself to an FIC.
I frankly do not know the difference between scintillation, fire, brilliance, etc. I juust know if a stone has life and stands out when you wear it.
My stone is a TIC and it has what to me looks like fire. Maybe it is brilliance or some other nuance that I am not equipped to describe. However, the stone, although large, is very bright and lively and I have been told by the appraiser and a jeweler that it faces up at least one shade better than it is. Although it is I color I am able to wear it with my eternity wedding band which has F & G color stones and it looks fine.
Mara.as always, has given excellent advice.