"Ideal" Prop. vs Light Return-Confused!

[NoviceNYC]

I have been a member of the board for about 2 months now. I guess you can say I have become quite the diamond nut-on paper. My boyfriend and I found our perfect setting about a month ago and have been waiting for things to calm down a bit before scouting for the perfect diamond. I can honestly say I have read about every tutorial and every post made for the last 2 months and some beyond. Well we started this weekend and the marathon is continuing throughout this week.

So with that said. I am hoping that the experts here could help me sort out some confusion I am having. One of my friends recently got engaged and her diamond is STUNNING. I mean every light condition just makes this diamond (as I like to say) blind me. It is an amazing prism of lights and the stone looks like a mirror. It just completely refracts light. The problem is it is no where near "Ideal" proportioned. My first stop this weekend was to one of the top pricescope vendors and I was disappointed. Not that the diamonds that I looked at were by any means not gorgeous, just that they didn''t "sparkle" as much as hers. But yet they scored high-high end (white light), very high-high end (color light), and very high-low end (scintillation) on the Brilliance scope. Here are the proportions of the 2 diamonds.
My Ideal specs are 1.70+, G, VS1-VS2, No Fluorescence, Round Brilliant.
Hers:
Carat-1.17
Cut-Round Brilliant
Clarity-VS1
Proportions-6.87-6.73X4.06mm
Depth-60%
Table-61%
Girdle-Thin to Medium Faceted
Polish-Excellent
Symmetry-Very Good
Fluorescence-None
(Sorry can''t get pavilion or crown angles)

The one I looked at:
Carat-1.65
Cut-Round Brilliant H&A
Clarity-VS1
Proportions-7.60-7.65X4.66mm
Depth-61.1%
Table-56%
Girdle-Medium
Polish-Excellent
Symmetry-Excellent
Cut-Ideal
Crown Angle-34.6
Pavilion Angle-40.7
Fluorescence-Faint

(I also looked at a beautiful 1.84 but no need to post 2 specs)

Ok. So here are my questions...why? I just expected to walk in to the vendor and see diamonds that had as much if not more "sparkle" than hers. I really would appreciate ANY help ANYONE can give me. Here are some other possible factors, thoughts that have been running through my brain. Could it be that I am looking at a larger stone? Could it be that hers has more facets (not proportional)? Could it be that hers is in a platinum bezel setting with micro pave diamonds around it refracting (maybe) on the diamond? Her setting is the Ritani Endless Love setting attached.

Overall question-why does a somewhat non-ideal diamonds "sparkle" more than an Ideal diamond?

Sorry this is so long but I am just very confused at this point.

 

[pricescope]

NoviceNYC, Although 61% table isn't within today's "official" ideal range, the diamond still can look great if crown and pavilion angles are right. Are you sure there is no mistake in the measurements: 6.87-6.73X4.06mm?

 

[Nicrez]

I'd like to add my vote that as you add diamonds of the Endless Love setting, you add sparkle to it too. My friend got a three stone, and her ring just BLINGS all over the place. If one stone doesn't stun you, the sidestones step in to help...

Yet, some cuts can be different than others. Is hers branded at all? I doubt it, but I can say that the Cento Diamond cut I saw made all other "regular' stones look BLAH.

The Cento had 100 facets, and in my opinion tiny sparkles flew all over, versus the usual chunky facets of a RB. It looked whiter as well than the color grade it had. I also saw the 88 diamond cut, which again, I will admit that cut compared to regular stones made them RBs around it look Blah. The 88 facets caused a very very white sparkly diamond look that totally awed me.

Maybe she had a branded cut? or maybe it was the pave around it...Like a white stone next to a yellow stone looks whiter, than when next to a D...it's perspective perhaps, and putting it next to more sparkle, brings out it's own more so...?

 

[valeria101]

Right. Not only the H&A and AGS0 proportions give good light return - there is more of them. You may want to read Garry's comments on THIS (link) thread and play a bit with those colorful charts next to the Cut Adviser

to see what works. The ideal (AGS0 & H&A) range represents a tight ballance between brilliance, fire and contrast... but light return alone is not as restrictive.

One can find brillaint diamodns outside the narrow 'ideal' margins. The tricky part is that GIA does not give these numbers and to ask for a stone with certain angles and table would mean to get a seller/delaer run Sarins until they find it! Well... of shift therough AGS (non 0s) and EGL certs (taking some safety in color and calrity).

Does this make sense ?

 

[NoviceNYC]

Sorry-Her's most likely is 6.67-6.73x4.06mm. She only received a copy of the GIA report and is getting the original any day. Apparently in the copy you can't tell if it is a 6 or an 8.

 

[pricescope]

NoviceNYC:

----------------
...Her's most likely is 6.67-6.73x4.06mm. She only received a copy of the GIA report and is getting the original any day. Apparently in the copy you can't tell if it is a 6 or an 8.----------------

I just tried to plug these numbers into DiamCalc...

If it is 6.67-6.73x4.06mm than total depth should be 60.5%, not 60%, which can make a difference.

 

[NoviceNYC]

Leonid-I am unsure as to if it is 60.5% or 60%...The GIA report simply says 60% (maybe GIA rounds down) If we agree that it may just be 60.5%, what does that say about cut that I can measure and mimic in my "perfect" stone?

Nicrez-It isn't a branded stone. It is from Ritani's wholesale diamond dealer Julius Cline(sp?).

I appreciate all of your responces, as I know you would understand that after reading and learning so much, I expect so much from my "perfect" diamond, yet I am confused at this point how to acheive those high "sparkle" standards.

 

[oldminer]

There was a long period of time where a non-Tolkowsky type was what people readily selected. The slightly spreadier diamond belonging to your friend is more of that style. It looks a little larger than a similar weight ideal cut. It may be very brilliant, too. Not a bad trade-off.

People today are targeting ultimate performance instead of slight compromise in brilliancy. It still remains a choice, but a more difficult one for those buying via the Internet. You can buy what you like and it remains easier to buy a stone you can see versus one from a description on a website.

We like to make rules about these things, but it is a little like grenades. Close enough is often just right.

 

[Mara]

Let me attempt to give some extra perspective from my experience...




Until recently I was the proud owner of a beautiful non-ideal diamond. The parameters of the stone put it in to an AGS9 or AGS10 category (depending on which Sarin you looked at!), obviously far from ideal. The depth was 57% and the table was 61.4%. The pav and crown angle were at the right spot for the stone to look really great. We always got compliments on my ring. Then again, my ring also has eternity prong set stones around it, so it DOES have the same bling bling look that your friends will have with the Ritani setting. So maybe that does make a difference.My stone when you would look inside looked like cut glass, not super symmetrical but very shimmery glassy white, very brilliant (white light return) to the eye in almost any condition.




Specs on old stone:


1.23c: 7.15mm x 4.08mm (looked like a 1.35c due to spread)


Table: 61.4%


Depth 56.9%


Crown Angle: 29.9 or 29.1 (two Sarins)


Pav Angle: 41.1


No Fluor, VG VG on Polish and Symm, No Culet




We made the decision to sell that stone and get one that is more typically ideal. We ended up with one that did not quite make the stellar Hearts and Arrows A Cut Above grade from WhiteFlash, but in terms of idealscope image, sarin report etc, this stone was a knockout. Pictures of it blew us away. Having heard about all the great ideal cut stones people got, the sparkle, the fire, the scintillation, it was a huge tease to us. We could not wait to see this new stone and expected it to be 100000% better than my old one.




New Stone Specs:


1.29c: 7.10mm x 4.31mm


Table: 55%


Depth: 60.7%


C. Angle: 34.9


P. Angle: 40.8


No Culet, No Fluor


EX EX Polish and Symm




The new stone arrived and it blew our socks off. Beautiful, amazing, the symmetry in this thing was hugely different than my old stone. I think the ONE thing I have to say I notice the most in this new stone day after day is the excellent symmetry. You can SEE the arrows so crisply and cleanly in certain lights. The old stone never had that, because the symmetry was not remotely as nice as this stone. No arrows appeared. The arrows in this new stone are what throw off most of the flashes too. I get broader flashes of color and white light, my old stone gave off more of a shattered glass prism look.




So there ARE different looks and neither one of them is WRONG. If you prefer the look of your friend's stone, then try to find one similar. Having had a stone like that, and knowing that I was not always going to keep that stone, I wanted to trade up later for something bigger, it made sense to start playing the field now and figure out what really floated my boat for the future. I LOVE my new stone. While the old stone was beautiful in many lighting environments, this new stone is just as beautiful in those same lighting environments and also is more beautiful in others! Whereas before my old stone threw off rainbows in one scenario, this new stone throws off 2ce as many rainbows!




I don't think I can really honestly say that there are times where I feel like my old stone would have looked MORE beautiful in a situation than my new stone. I guess also knowing that my new stone IS the more acceptable ideal standard and does have the sweet angles and numbers also makes it more beautiful anyway. A mental thing. My old stone was beautiful, but I knew inside that it was far from the ideal numbers and some may even consider it a borderline fish-eye. So I think that diminished some of the pleasure from it..AND in some scenarios where it did not look as great, I used to wonder if it was because it was not ideal! So now that I have this new ideal stone...I can really know for sure that it was or was not the old stone cut that would make it sparkle or not...and I guess I feel more 'well rounded' for lack of a better phrase.




Sorry to ramble, but as someone who has seen both sides of the coin....figured I'd try to add a little perspective. I plan to only buy ideals from this point on but if a stone like my old one presented itself for something like a pendant, I would not be adverse to it as long as it was discounted appropriately. So...go with your heart but be sure that you KNOW you will be happy with what you selected. Your friend's stone may be sparkling more because of the pave around it, or it just may be a great cut non-ideal stone! If you get something like that, will you be happy inside, since as you noted you are now a cut-nut on paper thanks to the forum? If you don't think you can subscribe 110% to the non-ideal way of thinking...then don't go there, because you may regret it later. Same with the ideal cut. Whatever you buy, be sure that it really floats your boat...because you will be wearing it!

If it helps, here is my new thread on the new stone and my ring:


https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-ring-oops-i-mean-rings.14091/




In there is a link to my OLD stone and ring pictures....some say they can see a huge difference...what do you think?

 

[pricescope]

----------------
...I am unsure as to if it is 60.5% or 60%...The GIA report simply says 60% (maybe GIA rounds down) If we agree that it may just be 60.5%, what does that say about cut that I can measure and mimic in my 'perfect' stone?
----------------

I'm sorry but it is impossible to guess without knowing exact numbers. If the stone is spready (shallower with larger diameter) it can be one thing. If it has smaller diameter and deeper, the effect will be different.

Also, when you compare diamonds, it's better to do it side by side in the same lightening conditions.

 

[noobie]

Dave gave you an expert opinion and I’m no expert, but I’ll share my experience.

Over ten years ago, I bought a 1.01 carat diamond for my wife.There was no Pricescope, no internet, no H&A, no HCA, no access to Sarins etc.So I took out a few books from the library and read all I could about buying diamonds.I ended up at a diamond dealer selling loose stones.I knew enough to ask for a 6.5 mm stone with a 60% depth and to look at printing through pavilion side up to see if it was fake.So I got what I asked for, a very bright white and sparkly diamond with good spread and depth.However, not that much fire or colored light. I knew nothing of crown angles and such.The appraiser told me I got a good deal.Looking at it now, it looks like the table is larger, guessing 60% and the crown is shallow, again guessing shallow crown angles.Arrows were terrible through the H&A viewer.

Now recently, I just bought an “ideal” cut diamond.H&A, great idealscope, great HCA score, AGS certification, the whole nine yards. When I look at this diamond, I would swear the old one is brighter and it probably appears brighter.As you said, it looks like a white sparkly mirror throwing light all over the place.However, when I put the new one next to it, it really shows the differences in character.The new one has so much more colored light, seems to throw light in more directions and has a overall depth of appearance that gives it much more of a 3D look.I could see light and dark contrast in it.I know this a not much of a technical description and a long winded way to say that the old diamond looked brighter and whiter, but the new ideal one looked more full and “richer”.After looking at them side by side, I definitely prefer the ideal cut. However, I could see many people preferring the non-ideal brighter stone.

It might be helpful if you could see them side-by-side to see which “type” you like better. You may just prefer a brighter, whiter looking diamond. Good luck!

Opps, I just noticed Mara posted something similar…sorry for the length

 

[Mara]

Actually noobie brings up a good point. The new ideal diamond is indeed richer...it appears to have more going on in inside of it. The old diamond was super white and sparkly but that was IT. That was ALL IT DID. There was no contrast inside the stone, no flashes of black to counterbalance the fire and white light. No arrows. No flashes of beautiful color in low-light situations. It just looked white and mirror-like and sparkly. Part of it comes down to an idea of what a diamond 'should look like'. No one REALLY has a definitive one-size-fits-all answer. But having seen both, I feel much happier with my new richer, more interesting diamond.

 

[derekinla]

Novice NYC,

It may be the case that the cut of you’re friend’s diamond is more along the lines of a BIC as opposed to a TIC or FIC. It may also be the case that you’re more drawn to the brilliance (white light return) of spreadier BIC’s over the colored flashes of FIC’s or TIC’s. I think this also illustrates the point that numbers don’t always tell the whole story and that you need make the final decision based upon visual inspection. Good luck and keep us posted