Smaller Superideals

[gatorgrad]

Hi all,

I'm not exactly sure of my ring strategy yet, but one option I'm considering is a very simple smaller solitare as my intended doesn't want to worry about something pricey on her hand (so, say, capped at ~3.5k w/simple setting). She also values quality over size but doens't have a firm preference on shape. Me being an engineer, I'm really interested in the 'super-ideal' cuts (Eighternity, Solasfera, Jubilee, etc)that researching Pricescope has educated me about (so much data! so cool!). Something firey and a little different would be just right.

With that background, I have a few questions (to start with :

1. Does the size of the stone affect the noticablility of a superideal cut? In other words, is it worth it at my price point to pay a premium for a more adanced cut, or stick with a H&A that's a little larger?

2. Is there a particular superideal that looks best in a smaller size?

Thanks!

 

[stone-cold11]

Extra facets cuts usually looks better for larger stones, smaller stones might be too busy for you to notice how different the cuts are due to the extra faceting. Your mileage may differ on where you starts to consider it being too busy.

I would probably try a chunkier facet cut like GOG's AVOEC if you want a different look from the standard 57 facet round H&A instead of going for the extra facet cuts.

 

[slg47]

I'm confused...do you want a 'different' cut or a superideal RB?

Here are some that could work..
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/8580/
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/8562/
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamond/diamond-detail/?product_id=AGS-104049455005

GOG has lots of great comparison videos so you can see what the different cuts look like.

 

[Amys Bling]

Are you looking for a superideal RB or a modified round brilliant. The cuts you listed are different modified/signature cuts (extra facets, etc) not super ideal traditional RBs like H&A.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Extra facets cuts usually looks better for larger stones, smaller stones might be too busy for you to notice how different the cuts are due to the extra faceting. Your mileage may differ on where you starts to consider it being too busy.

I would probably try a chunkier facet cut like GOG's AVOEC if you want a different look from the standard 57 facet round H&A instead of going for the extra facet cuts.

I agree with this entirely!!

 

[gatorgrad]

Whoops, sorry for the confusion - I always try to use jargon before I should I was asking about the difference between RB hearts and arrows cut vs. RB extra facet cuts at the smaller sizes.

Then I have to decide between whichever type of RB and a square/cushion H&A like a Quadex or a Brellia. I guess I was also asking how different Quadex/Brellia type cuts look from RBs around 5.5mm size...

I've been trying to find a GOG video of a AVOC but haven't found one yet. How would one of these be described in light performance vs. a H&A RB?

Thanks for the corrections, and the input! I really appreciate your time with someone just figuring things out.

 

[slg47]

Whoops, sorry for the confusion - I always try to use jargon before I should I was asking about the difference between RB hearts and arrows cut vs. RB extra facet cuts at the smaller sizes.

Then I have to decide between whichever type of RB and a square/cushion H&A like a Quadex or a Brellia. I guess I was also asking how different Quadex/Brellia type cuts look from RBs around 5.5mm size...

I've been trying to find a GOG video of a AVOC but haven't found one yet. How would one of these be described in light performance vs. a H&A RB?

Thanks for the corrections, and the input! I really appreciate your time with someone just figuring things out.

here is a video of August Vintage round compared with H&A
http://vimeo.com/10755866

RB H&A vs Solasfera vs Square cushion H&A (Brellia)
http://vimeo.com/9887305

RB H&A vs Solasfera in smaller sizes
http://vimeo.com/6011709

different square H&As
http://vimeo.com/2031114

you can also search different terms like 'august vintage', 'jubilee', etc and find more videos


I am assuming in the smaller carat sizes the extra facet rounds will look more 'busy' (some people like this look, some might not). To me, the round vs square looks very different. I have a square H&A cushion and I love it

 

[gatorgrad]

Perfect links - thanks!!

 

[TristanC]

I'm a big fan of modified rounds, but I would be wary at smaller sizes due to the effect of being too busy too small. It looks a bit much?

The other thing is that I've seen some modified rounds in small sizes (0.5 and below) which have an odd appearance directly face up because they don't immediately look the way you expect a round diamond to. And it never got better for me.

I do love them in the 0.75ct and up ranges though. I think that's when they are large enough to come into their own. 0.75 is a very modest size on PS, but to my eyes at least, it looks fine.

 

[Gypsy]

When you aren't paying retail I love the Hearts on Fire Dream cut for a cut cornered square brilliant: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hearts-Fire-Seduction-Dream-Square-Princess-Jewelry-/350487381291?pt=Diamond_Solitaire_Rings&hash=item519aad052b I'd best offer 1800 for the ring and get it appraised and polished and re-sized.


Just another option.



For my money...

If I were getting a round retail I would go for one of the BGD signature diamonds.

If I wanted a round with unique facets I would go for one of the August VIntage Rounds from GOG.

If I wanted a square diamond with ideal light performance I would go for a Jubilee, Quadex or POH (in order of preference).

 

[slg47]

When you aren't paying retail I love the Hearts on Fire Dream cut for a cut cornered square brilliant: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hearts-Fire-Seduction-Dream-Square-Princess-Jewelry-/350487381291?pt=Diamond_Solitaire_Rings&hash=item519aad052b I'd best offer 1800 for the ring and get it appraised and polished and re-sized.


Just another option.



For my money...

If I were getting a round retail I would go for one of the BGD signature diamonds.

If I wanted a round with unique facets I would go for one of the August VIntage Rounds from GOG.

If I wanted a square diamond with ideal light performance I would go for a Jubilee, Quadex or POH (in order of preference).

Gypsy, great find! The OP could even get a new setting if he wanted (although I really like the setting!)

 

[Gypsy]

Thanks SLG... I should probably explain that the reason I like the Dream Cut... other than the look of them and the performance is that they are one of VERY VERY few square cuts that are cut at around 60% or less depth (most square cuts are closer to 70%-- including the POH and the Quadex and AGS0 princesses) so they are relatively spready for a square cut. Which is a fabulous thing in a smaller carat weight diamond because you get more diamond face up and less in the pavilion.

I like the setting too. I think it's a lovely and unique solitaire the suits the Dream Cut.

ETA: I forgot... if I wanted a round brilliant, other than BGD I would totally be all over an Infinity diamond: www.highperformancediamonds.com here's a lovely diamond from them: http://www.highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=view-id-diamond-infinity&id=727

 

[slg47]

Thanks SLG... I should probably explain that the reason I like the Dream Cut... other than the look of them and the performance is that they are one of VERY VERY few square cuts that are cut at around 60% or less depth (most square cuts are closer to 70%-- including the POH and the Quadex and AGS0 princesses) so they are relatively spready for a square cut. Which is a fabulous thing in a smaller carat weight diamond because you get more diamond face up and less in the pavilion.

I like the setting too. I think it's a lovely and unique solitaire the suits the Dream Cut.

ETA: I forgot... if I wanted a round brilliant, other than BGD I would totally be all over an Infinity diamond: www.highperformancediamonds.com here's a lovely diamond from them: http://www.highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=view-id-diamond-infinity&id=727

Gypsy is the depth actually closer to 60 or is it just divided by the diagonal instead of the edge-to-edge length? The BGD Quadex calculates the depth this way and it makes it look smaller but the spread is in fact similar to the jubilee/POH/Square H&A/etc

ETA the measurements on that one are 5.43 x 4.63 x 3.17. So the depth is 68% if calculated similar to other square shapes.

 

[LGK]

Thanks SLG... I should probably explain that the reason I like the Dream Cut... other than the look of them and the performance is that they are one of VERY VERY few square cuts that are cut at around 60% or less depth (most square cuts are closer to 70%-- including the POH and the Quadex and AGS0 princesses) so they are relatively spready for a square cut. Which is a fabulous thing in a smaller carat weight diamond because you get more diamond face up and less in the pavilion.

I like the setting too. I think it's a lovely and unique solitaire the suits the Dream Cut.

ETA: I forgot... if I wanted a round brilliant, other than BGD I would totally be all over an Infinity diamond: www.highperformancediamonds.com here's a lovely diamond from them: http://www.highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=view-id-diamond-infinity&id=727

Gypsy is the depth actually closer to 60 or is it just divided by the diagonal instead of the edge-to-edge length? The BGD Quadex calculates the depth this way and it makes it look smaller but the spread is in fact similar to the jubilee/POH/Square H&A/etc

ETA the measurements on that one are 5.43 x 4.63 x 3.17. So the depth is 68% if calculated similar to other square shapes.

Ohhhh, interesting. I'd boggled over that one before- why the Quadex's depth was so similar to a RB's but the face up was so much smaller. That explains it!

OP, I would also suggest that the modified RB cuts are going to look a little odd in smaller sizes, to my eye at least. I think you start losing some fire at a certain point to the human eye if the facets get too small and splintery; I'm hardly an expert on optics though, so hopefully I've got that right!

Anyway, yes, the AV OECs are a great suggestion for a smaller size stone. You might even be able to drop down a bit in color to get a slightly larger size, since it's an antique style cut it wouldn't look "wrong".

Good luck!

 

[rainydaze]

i second the suggestions to take a look at the August Vintage Rounds. i have an half carat AVR, D/IF and it is spectacular. i can tell you from experience that you don't lose the beautiful facet pattern *at all* in this size, and you get unbelievable fire and brilliance from it. it's not my ering, but i could see choosing it for that if i were getting engaged now.... the fact that it is a unique cut, the light performance it gives off, and the D color all make it feel really, really special to me.

here's one that is .46ct, D/VS1 for $2476 (less if you pay by wire) which leaves you plenty for a nice setting:
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/7723/

 

[gatorgrad]

Thanks folks - I decided to show her the videos slg47 recommended and she liked the AVOC's the best with H&As second. We agreed the higher facet count diamonds are really interesting but moreso in the larger sizes.

OT - It's so hard to walk the line between surprise and getting her input. She knows I'm shopping, but I want it to at least be a little bit of a surprise.

We'll probably go see some stones in person to get an idea of her color sensitivity this weekend. Right now I'm leaning towards bumping the budget to 7k or so to enable an AVOC in a Mark Merrell setting, but not sure how it'll play out.

 

[ame]

Can I give a different opinion on the superideal modified cuts? I own one presently, had have owned a couple others also, all Star129s. The smallest has been .86. Personally I LOVED the look and I am hoping to save up AND find some that are .3 to .5ct each so I can make studs with them, If you like the look, see it in person OR in photos at actual size or slightly less magnified than shown on screen and make sure you still do. The fire is definitely different in these but at that size the fire is even more different.