How small is too small for super ideal?

[lovedogs]

Just curious if anyone has super ideal stones (CBI, ACA, BGD lines, or VC h&a) that are under .5ct? Curious if it's worth the premium in smaller sizes. Thinking of having a ring made that would require a small stone (likely in the .3 to .4ct range). When comparing prices online, the difference between the best cut stones at JA or BN and ACA/CBI isnt huge...typically a few hundred $$. Likely because these are small stones. Example: D/VS with ags 000 but not branded is in the 800-900 range in this size, and D/SI1 or E/VS ACA is in that same price range for the same size, or in the 950-1000 range for D/VS. Just curious what folks think about the benefit (if any) of super ideal stones in these sizes. Thanks!

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

Just curious if anyone has super ideal stones (CBI, ACA, BGD lines, or VC h&a) that are under .5ct? Curious if it's worth the premium in smaller sizes. Thinking of having a ring made that would require a small stone (likely in the .3 to .4ct range). When comparing prices online, the difference between the best cut stones at JA or BN and ACA/CBI isnt huge...typically a few hundred $$. Likely because these are small stones. Example: D/VS with ags 000 but not branded is in the 800-900 range in this size, and D/SI1 or E/VS ACA is in that same price range for the same size, or in the 950-1000 range for D/VS. Just curious what folks think about the benefit (if any) of super ideal stones in these sizes. Thanks!

As a lover of 4-6mm diamonds I second this question.

 

[LLJsmom]

Funny you should ask because I was just considering a small stone myself. So for me nothing is too small. I also like have the option to trade it in to get something bigger in the future. I just know myself and I know I will have projects in the future. Having the option is worth it.

 

[Franqui62]

I’m interested to see as, with very small hands, as you know originally I was looking at .32 - 0.5 super ideal. Then we decided to up the budget. I think I originally posted a 0.32? here?

 

[michkal]

I’m interested to see as, with very small hands, as you know originally I was looking at .32 - 0.5 super ideal. Then we decided to up the budget. I think I originally posted a 0.32? here?

 

[daisygrl]

I believe that anything above 0.20ct or anything that is eligible (size-wise) for a lab report is worth getting in super-ideal quality.

As you pointed out, the price difference in this size is negligible, + knowing I have excellently cut stone (even a tiny one), I would select a super-ideal.

 

[rainydaze]

I just bought .3ct ACAs for my three-stone ring (both G/VS1). I don't have much experience comparing them to others of that size with different cut grades, but they are insanely gorgeous. I also like having the 'insurance' policy of being able to upgrade them should my tastes evolve over time (larger or higher color - they are Gs though).

I do have .3ct studs that are AGS 000, D and E color, VS1 & VS2. I haven't compared them - which is kind of funny. Seems like an obvious thing I should have done by now! I do feel like the ACAs are more ka-pow but that's going on my initial reactions.

I also have an H&A Princess of Hearts that is .76 and H color. It doesn't have a cut grade of course, it isn't a nound brilliant, and it's larger than your range, but I will say this: it is a beautiful stone that gives me great pleasure, whereas the .3ct ACAs have that take-my-breath away effect, despite being smaller.

ETA: I also have a .45 August Vintage Round that sits alone in a setting. I haven't compared them side-by-side, but I'd say they are equal in the spectacular-ness of their performance, with allowances for their different personalities.

 

[John Pollard]

Great question.

Basis: The benefits of super ideal cut quality are (1) proportions which promote robust light return, coupled with (2) additional fine-tuning of facet groups to achieve 3D optical precision.

To elaborate on #2: A diamond is composed of mirrors which reflect parts of each other. Those reflections of reflections are called compound mirrors.


AGS graphic above, used with permission.

When well-executed, a high level of 3D optical precision causes the reflections to overlap precisely, keeping more of the compound mirrors intact.


As diamonds get smaller, a diamond's compound mirror integrity can be connected to our human perception of dispersion-as-fire and brightness/contrast in general.

Perception of Fire: If a dispersive fan arrives to your eye and it's large enough that only red enters your pupil, your brain sees a RED FLASH of diamond fire. If only the blue component enters you see a BLUE FLASH of diamond fire.



Perception of Brightness: Small dispersive fans can also be seen as white. When a dispersive fan is smaller than the size of your pupil and all component colors enter at once, your brain recombines them and sees a flash of white light. If the dispersive fan is tiny or weak you may not see anything.


If you placed the theoretical examples below, side by side, in ever-shrinking carat weights (given illumination scenarios conducive to brightness, contrast and dispersion) you'd have a better chance of perceiving dispersion as fire, and balanced brightness/contrast overall in the one with higher order of 3D optical precision.



At what carat weight does it stop making a difference? That's debatable. Fans of single cuts might also have an opinion about internal reflections. At any weight however, you can rely on this:

"The higher the order of precision, the larger the compound mirrors." - Pete Yanzter.

Related pages, for anyone interested:
- Guess what? Dispersion and fire aren't the same thing
- Diamond Performance Explained

 

[lovedogs]

Thanks, all! Trying to decide (if I do this project) whether I'd go for a CBI vs ACA. Seems like WF has more options between .3 and .4 than CBI right now, so we will see!

 

[lovedogs]

Thanks @John Pollard ! I would only be considering non branded ideal cuts if they fell into a super narrow range of cut, so theoretically the difference would be smaller than the pic you showed. But I certainly appreciate your point!

 

[lulu_ma]

I think it's totally worth it! I was thinking about doing a 5 stone with @.40 ACAs.

(I saw a beautiful Memoire branded 5 stone and figured out I could make one with ACAs for about 1/3 of the price!)

 

[Karl_K]

Depends on your eyesight
fyi wifey4vrs is .42ct and as super ideal as it gets and it rocks
but the difference between great is image with reasonable face up optical symmetry and super ideal is less.

 

[molecule]

The same question has been asked about OECs before - for me, I can observe and appreciate the faceting in the 4.5mm baby OEC I recently purchased.

To me, $100-200 seems relatively reasonable, but if it wasn't, I would consider dropping down to G or H color since the stone is smaller to make up the difference.

 

[whitewave]

At the boise CBI get together, I personally felt around a .42 had visual substance. or at least in the high 30 points

…but my aquamarine has 30 pointers but they are side stones.

 

[michkal]

I want to know, too! I just ordered a 3/4 eternity band with 20 pointers and didn’t know if these ideal vendors are worth it? I went with wolf/cbi . Whiteflash was my second choice but I liked the setting a bit less. Wondering if it’s worth the premium? Haven’t compared in person and it’s hard to tell online, so I figured I won’t regret going great but I might regret going good…

 

[LLJsmom]

I want to know, too! I just ordered a 3/4 eternity band with 20 pointers and didn’t know if these ideal vendors are worth it? I went with wolf/cbi . Whiteflash was my second choice but I liked the setting a bit less. Wondering if it’s worth the premium? Haven’t compared in person and it’s hard to tell online, so I figured I won’t regret going great but I might regret going good…

You need to copyright that: I won’t regret going great but I might regret going good.

Nothing I have come across sums it up as well as this. Do I have your permission to use that phrase in the future?

 

[Karl_K]

one consideration is finding multiple stones that work together can be much easier with a super ideal vendor.

 

[michkal]

You need to copyright that: I won’t regret going great but I might regret going good.

Nothing I have come across sums it up as well as this. Do I have your permission to use that phrase in the future?

Ha!!!

 

[distracts]

IMO yes the difference is still noticeable at this size, and even smaller. I have ONE ring that has melee that are noticeably more sparkly than any of my others, and you can tell from across the room that it's sparklier. That ring has convinced me to always try to get ideal cut melee if I can.

 

[sledge]

Sounds like an interesting project. Thought you liked warmer stones? A little surprised to hear you talk D/E colors. I'd take an E-SI1 super ideal personally. Or spend $100-200 and get what I wanted.

There is never any substitution for what the heart wants and your mind thinks is the best. Your question tells me you aren't convinced and looking for assurance. Just my 2 cents but I doubt you'd be okay with something less, especially for same (or near same) money and non-appreciable color or clarity variances.

One nice perk of ACA is WF's depth of inventory making trades easier should that ever become a consideration down the road.

 

[lovedogs]

Sounds like an interesting project. Thought you liked warmer stones? A little surprised to hear you talk D/E colors. I'd take an E-SI1 super ideal personally. Or spend $100-200 and get what I wanted.

There is never any substitution for what the heart wants and your mind thinks is the best. Your question tells me you aren't convinced and looking for assurance. Just my 2 cents but I doubt you'd be okay with something less, especially for same (or near same) money and non-appreciable color or clarity variances.

One nice perk of ACA is WF's depth of inventory making trades easier should that ever become a consideration down the road.

For this project I would want a D-G color, and was just using D/VS as an example of price differences. But you are likely right that I wouldn't be happy with a non ideal stone. But yes, warm stones still make me very happy

 

[RunningwithScissors]

I have 8 ACA's that are approximately .33's. I am collecting them for a tennis bracelet.

Mine are insanely brilliant and fiery. Like mega disco balls. So for me, yes I can see the difference, and yes it is worth it.

(To my knowledge, Whiteflash starts their certified ACAs at .30 ct. Below .30 I believe is considered melee.)

I have compared my loose ACAs side-by-side to mounted non-super ideals in a friend's tennis bracelet and they are night and day different. However, the non super ideas I compared them to were not graded by a lab, so probably were not within a GIA XXX range (and yes I know XXX is a wide range). Sorry I didn't take photos at the time because it would have been rude.

I need to take a better video, but here's the thread on my project. (The video in it doesn't do them justice, its blurry and taken in crappy lighting.) https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/aca-tennis-bracelet-project-has-begun.262718/

 

[lovedogs]

While on the topic of ideal cuts, wondering if @Karl_K Or @John Pollard or @flyingpig or anyone else could explain how lower %/table/ other measures interact to make the effect of "fat arrows "? I usually look for both small table and 75% lower. But I just realized that a stone I'm looking at with 56% table and 76% lowers has arrows that look equally or even more "fat" then a stone with 54% table and 78% lower. I guess my question is: do these measures work in tandem to create the effect of arrows being "fat"?

 

[Rfisher]

I bought (third hand) ten 15 pointer ACA’s for a project.
I can definitely appreciate their cut at this size - but it may be more due to the qty in a lineup (and the quality and similarity in that lineup to each other) instead of a singleton stone, as mentioned upthread by another poster.

if someone can find a non branded/near ideal cut somewhere it will be you!
I think it’s more a question of your time involved looking vs an easy click buy of branded.

 

[Karl_K]

While on the topic of ideal cuts, wondering if @Karl_K Or @John Pollard or @flyingpig or anyone else could explain how lower %/table/ other measures interact to make the effect of "fat arrows "? I usually look for both small table and 75% lower. But I just realized that a stone I'm looking at with 56% table and 76% lowers has arrows that look equally or even more "fat" then a stone with 54% table and 78% lower. I guess my question is: do these measures work in tandem to create the effect of arrows being "fat"?

yes no maybe so.
The physical width of the mains are controlled by the lgf% period assuming no twist and yaw.
However table size determines the length of the arrow shafts vs the heads.
The pavilion angle controls the boldness of the arrows.
To make it even more confusing some combinations of all the facets "pop" the arrows more.
Even more confusing is the physical width does not always add up to visual width.

Do the pavilion mains drive light return in the modern round brilliant?

Article by Karl K. On many websites you will see it said that the pavilion main facets drive light return. Top labs and many grading systems use the pavilion angle […]

www.pricescope.com

 

[flyingpig]

@lovedogs
As you know, a smaller the LGH % produces thicker arrows.
A larger table % creates bigger reflection in the middle. As a result, the arrows look skinnier.

One number you did not mention is PA. A large PA produces larger table reflection which can the arrows appear skinnier

You need to look at all these three numbers.

@Karl_K explained better above.

 

[yssie]

I do definitely think that - well, humans aren’t microscopes, there is a practical lower size bound below which exceptional optical symmetry makes no appreciable difference over “yup, that’s pretty good”. At some small facet size individual primary refractions fail to be resolvable and individual dispersions mostly combine - that’s why so rarely see coloured light in infant melee (for lack of a better word ) and why some people prefer single cuts in the really small sizes... FWIW I’ve never actually taken a H&A scope to the underside of melee from any vendor but I have my doubts most vendors’ stuff is actually truly H&A, just judging by what I see face-up. For sure it’s all a LOT better than “the generic stuff” though!

I’m really short-sighted - useless without my contacts sort of short-sighted. So I can appreciate differences in really small stones, and upgrading melee in anything 0.15ish or larger would be worth it to me. My other half has excellent distance vision but his close-up is starting to fade, and he often can’t see the differences that I can. Lots of reasons for that (the fact that he doesn’t particularly care is one of them ) but I think he genuinely can’t see everything I do, physiologically.

Well that was a bit of a ramble. Ultimately I’m 100% on board with what @michkal said earlier - few people ever regret going with the “best” they can do

 

[John Pollard]

As per FP/KK posts - everything works in tandem.

All these CGI use 77% lower halves.

A large PA produces larger table reflection which can the arrows appear skinnier

...as in a bright 60-60: 77% LH @ T 60 PA 41.2 CA 32.0

However table size determines the length of the arrow shafts vs the heads.

...as in a firey Ideal: 77% LH @ T 55 PA 40.6 CA 36.0



In-between: 77% LH @ T 57 PA 40.75 CA 34.5



FYI, all have 50% star facets. Technically, shorter stars could reduce table reflection a bit in the first example above, but not by much.

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

Thanks to everyone who replied. I have been wanting a 4.5 mm solitaire and think I will look into WF. Does anyone have any comment on comparing JA or BN superideals with WF or each other?

Agree with @molecule it is possible to see the overall different look of a smaller oec compared to mrb. My farsighted eyes can’t see the oec pattern or facets at a smaller size but there is more fire and wider flashes regardless.

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

PS - I searched for the thread on how-small-can-you-still-see-facets-on-oec and is-small-oec-worth-it but couldn’t find them. Anyone know where the threads went? Some of us recently got smaller oecs and maybe we could update.

@molecule ? Anyone?