Symmetry: Ideal (AGS000, GIAXXX) vs. "Super"ideal

[maxs.memo]

If a report states that a diamond is ideal or excellent cut and marks that symmetry is a "0" or "excellent" what is the optical benefit of upgrading to a superideal diamond? You already have 100% light return (particularly with AGS), what improvement do you see with H&A, signature cut, etc.? In the instance of the "Leo" diamonds with Kay's, I have read that many of these cuts feature additional facets. Does this actually produce better appearance when viewing a diamond or is it marketing?

Thanks in advance. Just a source of curiosity...

 

[ecf8503]

Extra facets is a personal thing - there is no right or wrong. But if you pack more facets onto the same size stone, each facet has to be smaller, so it gives a more "splintery" look - the flashes of light might be more in number, but will be smaller. Take a look at Good Old Gold's videos on the Solasfera for example. Here's one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YhhTLIxv28

 

[diamondseeker2006]

This video might also be helpful as it compares good, very good, excellent, and H&A (superideal) cut diamonds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp94DI3xTA0&feature=youtu.be

 

[arkieb1]

I know I keep mentioning these and he doesn't have one exactly in the range you are looking for BUT they are superb if you are back to wanting a super Ideal;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOCXT4ntmsA

 

[maxs.memo]

I think the premium is too high unfortunately. I would say that his diamonds have a 1-2k price hike over other ideal cuts. That is not worth it for my application. For a 1.25 ct I would be nearly at my full price for the setting and diamond. Right now, my line is drawn at 9k. It was originally 8, so I have already relaxed quite a bit. Thanks for the suggestion, but honestly, my girlfriend and I don't own any diamonds so an ideal cut with ideal symmetry and light performance is going to look amazing to us.

 

[arkieb1]

I think the premium is too high unfortunately. I would say that his diamonds have a 1-2k price hike over other ideal cuts. That is not worth it for my application. For a 1.25 ct I would be nearly at my full price for the setting and diamond. Right now, my line is drawn at 9k. It was originally 8, so I have already relaxed quite a bit. Thanks for the suggestion, but honestly, my girlfriend and I don't own any diamonds so an ideal cut with ideal symmetry and light performance is going to look amazing to us.

Honestly, I wish he did have one in your price point because I know how amazing they are. A triple ex cut won't be as nice as a "perfect Ideal", but you will pay a premium from any vendor that has what they class as a "super Ideal" or the best of the best of what they have. I think if you aren't used to seeing diamonds then something that has a great HCA and AGA score provided it has no other issues should meet your criteria. And for the record the best of the best of the Super Ideas are far nice than the hits and misses branded as Leo cuts.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

If a report states that a diamond is ideal or excellent cut and marks that symmetry is a "0" or "excellent" what is the optical benefit of upgrading to a superideal diamond? You already have 100% light return (particularly with AGS), what improvement do you see with H&A, signature cut, etc.? In the instance of the "Leo" diamonds with Kay's, I have read that many of these cuts feature additional facets. Does this actually produce better appearance when viewing a diamond or is it marketing?

Thanks in advance. Just a source of curiosity...

Interesting questions, Maximus, and you have received good responses. Just adding my 2 cents.

1. When a lab grades symmetry, this is generally point-meet-symmetry, not optical symmetry. The use of the same word, symmetry, is unfortunate and confusing.

2. Stating that you have 100% light return (particularly with AGS) is in reality incorrect. The lab-grade is not connected to light return. In the case of most labs, it is connected to charts that in turn are expected to produce a high degree of brightness. In the case of AGS, it is a measure of mostly brightness, with a very slight seasoning of potential fire.

3. Additional facets, like another poster mentioned, produce a higher number of virtual facets. This means a higher number of 'mirrors' in the diamond, all reacting differently to light. In a diamond of very big size, this might be beneficial as the size of all virtual facets also becomes bigger, and this has the potential of being perceived as better scintillation. That is why such cuts are often promoted or 'explained' in-store with super-big imitations (CZ or other). In more traditional sizes, more virtual facets for the same surface means smaller virtual facets, thus decreasing the probability of observing fire and the quality of scintillation (a more splintery look instead of crisp scintillation).

4. Unfortunately, also the term 'super-ideal' is over-used without a specific definition. For some, it will mean H&A (whatever that means), for others, it may have a different meaning, related to the desire of defining a signature-line. In that sense, any answer to your questions might at the same time be correct and incorrect.

5. The optical benefit of going further than the best possible lab-grade or even the best possible online-assessment exists. Whether that possibility is realized by version A, B or C of 'super-ideal' is a question. Like I said above, even when going with AGS-0 only, the cut-grade is mainly a measure of brightness with a very slight seasoning of potential fire. It says nothing directly about the scintillation of the stone, and the true observation of fire could be graded better. In my view, the quality of scintillation depends highly on the crispness of cutting, reducing the number of extremely small virtual facets, which do not have optical benefits, to the contrary. The same crispness of cutting also highly influences the observation of fire. Unfortunately, too many people translate this into H&A or not, while one actually can have 'blurry' H&A (not beneficial, in my view) and crisp H&A (extremely beneficial).

Summarizing, you may disagree with me on why 'super-ideal' can be better, but I think I made the case of there being a void to be filled beyond a lab-grade. With the void existing, you can be sure that some people are trying to fill it, just like the presence of a mountain might be the reason for climbing it.

Live long,