How much more sparkle will I see with a top cut?

[Texas Leaguer]

Fascinating videos, egem!

In the second one, near the end, when the two diamonds are compared under Intense Shop Lighting, the diamond on the left very clearly has superior performance, to my eyes.

It also illustrates the limitations of HCA scores. In particular it demonstrates how a lower score under 2 does not necessarily equate to better performance. As Garry Holloway makes clear HCA is a rejection tool, not a selection tool. Often we see people trying to do too much with that tool, usually in the abscence of other diagnostics such as LP images.

You guys are assuming these two stones are given the same lighting and that they are both equally clean. I wouldn't put too much stock in a video produced by that the company that is trying to sell you on superideal stones being better, nor would I assume their representation is what you should expect to see in most cases in real life viewing.

It's always wise to take things with a grain of salt. But when what you learn and what you see are consistent, you can start to become a little less skeptical.

Afterall, the challenge is to somehow prove that what we can see in the data, what we see in static LP images, and what we see as just plain logical, does in fact translate to real life. You have experts and prosumers that testify that they can appreciate the visual differences that high precision cutting makes, and you have video evidence that clearly suggests the same thing. I'm not sure there is a lot more that can be done to definitively prove it. It seems like it is easier to be on the other side of this argument!

 

[pfunk]

Fascinating videos, egem!

In the second one, near the end, when the two diamonds are compared under Intense Shop Lighting, the diamond on the left very clearly has superior performance, to my eyes.

It also illustrates the limitations of HCA scores. In particular it demonstrates how a lower score under 2 does not necessarily equate to better performance. As Garry Holloway makes clear HCA is a rejection tool, not a selection tool. Often we see people trying to do too much with that tool, usually in the abscence of other diagnostics such as LP images.

You guys are assuming these two stones are given the same lighting and that they are both equally clean. I wouldn't put too much stock in a video produced by that the company that is trying to sell you on superideal stones being better, nor would I assume their representation is what you should expect to see in most cases in real life viewing.

It's always wise to take things with a grain of salt. But when what you learn and what you see are consistent, you can start to become a little less skeptical.

Afterall, the challenge is to somehow prove that what we can see in the data, what we see in static LP images, and what we see as just plain logical, does in fact translate to real life. You have experts and prosumers that testify that they can appreciate the visual differences that high precision cutting makes, and you have video evidence that clearly suggests the same thing. I'm not sure there is a lot more that can be done to definitively prove it. It seems like it is easier to be on the other side of this argument!

I'm not saying you can't appreciate the differences. I'm saying that the videos (like this) are marketing to help sell the superideal as the pinnacle and they are designed to make them look significantly better. Not by accident, of course. These two videos have been posted several times here, and it was actually an expert that suggested the inferior diamond here looked to have a dirty pavilion. I believe it was Serg in one of my threads actually. It is no different than the idealscope images that are used to scare folks away from GIA stones... the ones you find on the websites of the vendors who specialize in superideals. They show the perfect IS image of a superideal next to the nastiest, leakiest looking GIA excellent that could be found.

Some can see the difference, some can't I guess. I've seen a superideal (Hearts on Fire) that I couldn't appreciate a difference from the ideal cut that I compared it to. Certainly nothing like this video seems to suggest. But you're right, of course I am skeptical when the folks posting the video are the ones selling the superideals. An unbiased source with controlled and documented conditions would be more definitive to me, but if this is the video evidence you are referring to I'm not gonna attach "definitive" to it.

 

[oldminer]

Just to add a couple more thoughts to what have been some excellent and well balanced responses:

​

Lighting is crucial to anyone seeing how beautiful and effectively cut a particular diamond is. In the dark, they all look the same, but how they are lit, in each different lighting environment, will make particular stones look better than others. Yet, when the lighting is changed, some other set of stones may look better than before and the ones from before, those that looked very good, may not be so wonderful. In the lighting scenario that the trade more or less agrees upon as a "standard" diamonds get most of their light from direct lighting at angles other than 90 degrees perpendicular to the table as one's head and shoulders often obscure the perpendicular examination of a diamond. Also, not so much lighting comes to a diamond from shallow angles which come close to being perpendicular to the girdle or just above the girdle 10 or 15 degrees.

​

This is why the ASET scope has colored zones which result in defining the angles of light incidence and reflection/refraction. When diamonds of high cut quality are lit in the accepted, standard environment, then the readings of the ASET, and Ideal-Scope for round diamonds, become reliable tools for making some worthwhile decisions on what to buy. In non-standard lighting, these same well cut diamonds might not look better than some off-cut stone from time to time, but will always look very fine in the normal, "standard" lighting scenario which all the major lab grading is based upon.

​

I hope this makes sense to you. It is a bit technical, but when you get into the subject, it becomes far less romantic and subjective and a lot more suited to engineering concepts. My personal approach is that nearly everyone compromises on color, clarity and weight. Compromising on cut from the AGS000 to GIA ExExVg range or even GIA VgVgVg range is something that may make sense to stay within a given budget. Some won't make that compromise and some may consider it. I don't think it is unreasonable to consider making a personal choice based on your own reasoning. Better to make a thoughtful decision than to be blindly guided by absolutes that you don't understand or appreciate.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Fascinating videos, egem!

In the second one, near the end, when the two diamonds are compared under Intense Shop Lighting, the diamond on the left very clearly has superior performance, to my eyes.

It also illustrates the limitations of HCA scores. In particular it demonstrates how a lower score under 2 does not necessarily equate to better performance. As Garry Holloway makes clear HCA is a rejection tool, not a selection tool. Often we see people trying to do too much with that tool, usually in the abscence of other diagnostics such as LP images.

You guys are assuming these two stones are given the same lighting and that they are both equally clean. I wouldn't put too much stock in a video produced by that the company that is trying to sell you on superideal stones being better, nor would I assume their representation is what you should expect to see in most cases in real life viewing.

It's always wise to take things with a grain of salt. But when what you learn and what you see are consistent, you can start to become a little less skeptical.

Afterall, the challenge is to somehow prove that what we can see in the data, what we see in static LP images, and what we see as just plain logical, does in fact translate to real life. You have experts and prosumers that testify that they can appreciate the visual differences that high precision cutting makes, and you have video evidence that clearly suggests the same thing. I'm not sure there is a lot more that can be done to definitively prove it. It seems like it is easier to be on the other side of this argument!

I'm not saying you can't appreciate the differences. I'm saying that the videos (like this) are marketing to help sell the superideal as the pinnacle and they are designed to make them look significantly better. Not by accident, of course. These two videos have been posted several times here, and it was actually an expert that suggested the inferior diamond here looked to have a dirty pavilion. I believe it was Serg in one of my threads actually. It is no different than the idealscope images that are used to scare folks away from GIA stones... the ones you find on the websites of the vendors who specialize in superideals. They show the perfect IS image of a superideal next to the nastiest, leakiest looking GIA excellent that could be found.

Some can see the difference, some can't I guess. I've seen a superideal (Hearts on Fire) that I couldn't appreciate a difference from the ideal cut that I compared it to. Certainly nothing like this video seems to suggest. But you're right, of course I am skeptical when the folks posting the video are the ones selling the superideals. An unbiased source with controlled and documented conditions would be more definitive to me, but if this is the video evidence you are referring to I'm not gonna attach "definitive" to it.

That's an understandable position P. Absolute certainty is required by some before electing to go for top craftsmanship.
And again, as we compare options at the top of the scale, visual differences which our eyes can perceive do become harder to document in a form that would be considered "definitive proof".

It may be better to look at it from a standpoint of "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
To me this is more of a civil case than a criminal trial. Nobody is going to jail here.

 

[denverappraiser]

Fascinating videos, egem!

In the second one, near the end, when the two diamonds are compared under Intense Shop Lighting, the diamond on the left very clearly has superior performance, to my eyes.

It also illustrates the limitations of HCA scores. In particular it demonstrates how a lower score under 2 does not necessarily equate to better performance. As Garry Holloway makes clear HCA is a rejection tool, not a selection tool. Often we see people trying to do too much with that tool, usually in the abscence of other diagnostics such as LP images.

You guys are assuming these two stones are given the same lighting and that they are both equally clean. I wouldn't put too much stock in a video produced by that the company that is trying to sell you on superideal stones being better, nor would I assume their representation is what you should expect to see in most cases in real life viewing.

It's always wise to take things with a grain of salt. But when what you learn and what you see are consistent, you can start to become a little less skeptical.

Afterall, the challenge is to somehow prove that what we can see in the data, what we see in static LP images, and what we see as just plain logical, does in fact translate to real life. You have experts and prosumers that testify that they can appreciate the visual differences that high precision cutting makes, and you have video evidence that clearly suggests the same thing. I'm not sure there is a lot more that can be done to definitively prove it. It seems like it is easier to be on the other side of this argument!

I'm not saying you can't appreciate the differences. I'm saying that the videos (like this) are marketing to help sell the superideal as the pinnacle and they are designed to make them look significantly better. Not by accident, of course. These two videos have been posted several times here, and it was actually an expert that suggested the inferior diamond here looked to have a dirty pavilion. I believe it was Serg in one of my threads actually. It is no different than the idealscope images that are used to scare folks away from GIA stones... the ones you find on the websites of the vendors who specialize in superideals. They show the perfect IS image of a superideal next to the nastiest, leakiest looking GIA excellent that could be found.

Some can see the difference, some can't I guess. I've seen a superideal (Hearts on Fire) that I couldn't appreciate a difference from the ideal cut that I compared it to. Certainly nothing like this video seems to suggest. But you're right, of course I am skeptical when the folks posting the video are the ones selling the superideals. An unbiased source with controlled and documented conditions would be more definitive to me, but if this is the video evidence you are referring to I'm not gonna attach "definitive" to it.

I have to agree with pfunk here. Videos like this have to be taken with a giant grain of salt. This is not a scientific study, it’s an illustration designed to make a point. It's an advertisement. 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed aren't necessarily wrong but without know how they were chosen to participate in the survey, you've learned nothing.

 

[Rockdiamond]

You hit the nail on the head Neil.
To use Bryan's analogy, we are talking about a "preponderance of the evidence"
If that evidence is tainted, it's preponderance is worthless.
The ironic aspect of this, for me, is that I understand what makes Ideal Cut diamonds cost more, and I find the extra cost to be completely justified. I love the way they they look.
Basically, the product itself should sell itself on it's merits, and it does when people compare in real life. Many people do choose a super ideal based on the visual characteristics.

What I find to be a real problem is the use of advertisements as "scientific proof"


The online advertisements, such as the videos in this thread, pretty much all hinge on "scientific proof"- which is appealing to many people who read online information.
If they are not aware that the results are biased, then they act on flawed information.

Which is why this discussion continues......