What an "IDEAL" cut diamond can look like...

[mrsctobe]

Hi all! I have a 2ct diamond I got about 8 years ago when I knew alot less about diamonds, or cuts/certifications, etc. and purely bought it based on its stated stats (ideal, ideal, ideal.) without knowing proportions and other details such as idealscope.

I recently bought an ACA AGS000 diamond that came with a hearts and arrows viewer, and so I looked at my original "ideal" diamond using this tool to compare the two:



Note that in person, it looks very sparkley and nice, but as you can see the cut is not symmetrical and is messy compared to other "IDEAL" cut diamonds.

For reference, this is my new ACA, which is even more crisp and sparkley in person:



Insane the variation that "ideal cut" can take! I couldnt believe the difference between the two cuts..
Thanks to you guys for educating me and really opening my eyes on diamond quality. <3

 

[nala]

Would love to see pics of both side by side in various lighting environments.

 

[mrsctobe]

Would love to see pics of both side by side in various lighting environments.

Great idea! I actually had not put them together in daylight, but now that I look at them, the difference is very obvious. My "original" diamond on its own seems very sparkley, but next to the ACA, doesnt seem crisp at all. The ACA has alot more contract, sharp and darker/light areas. To be fair, my original diamond really needs a cleaning, which is why I used the hearts/arrows viewer to confirm it was indeed mostly a cut issue:


^ACA top, original diamond bottom
(natural sunlight)



^ACA top, original diamond bottom
(indoor, natural light)


^ACA left, original diamond right
(indoor, natural light)

 

[mrsctobe]

@DejaWiz tagging you since I promised you an update on purchasing the 2.56ct ACA (I was worried it wouldnt be eye clean. To me, it is, and the cut is sublime!)

 

[Bijouteried]

Hi all! I have a 2ct diamond I got about 8 years ago when I knew alot less about diamonds, or cuts/certifications, etc. and purely bought it based on its stated stats (ideal, ideal, ideal.) without knowing proportions and other details such as idealscope.

I recently bought an ACA AGS000 diamond that came with a hearts and arrows viewer, and so I looked at my original "ideal" diamond using this tool to compare the two:



Note that in person, it looks very sparkley and nice, but as you can see the cut is not symmetrical and is messy compared to other "IDEAL" cut diamonds.

For reference, this is my new ACA, which is even more crisp and sparkley in person:



Insane the variation that "ideal cut" can take! I couldnt believe the difference between the two cuts..
Thanks to you guys for educating me and really opening my eyes on diamond quality. <3

Very cool to be able to compare the two in this way! Congrats on two sparkly stones.

 

[lanz88]

Your diamond is beautiful!

I saw this one yesterday which I was curious about as it had a great video and within the ideal parameters, HCA 1.4 but has a not so great idealscope image. Always pays to check advanced imaging!

 

[DejaWiz]

@DejaWiz tagging you since I promised you an update on purchasing the 2.56ct ACA (I was worried it wouldnt be eye clean. To me, it is, and the cut is sublime!)

Wow your new ACA is a real stunner - congratulations! What a tremendous difference over your other diamond!

 

[mrsctobe]

Wow your new ACA is a real stunner - congratulations! What a tremendous difference over your other diamond!

Thank you!! I really didnt think there would be a huge visual difference but it is fairly drastic!

 

[mrsctobe]

Your diamond is beautiful!

I saw this one yesterday which I was curious about as it had a great video and within the ideal parameters, HCA 1.4 but has a not so great idealscope image. Always pays to check advanced imaging!

Thank you! Is it possible the image wasnt taken that well, what didnt you like about it?

 

[mrsctobe]

Very cool to be able to compare the two in this way! Congrats on two sparkly stones.

Thank you! I'll need to figure out what to do with the old one and yes, I didnt notice a big visual difference at first but then again I compared them at night in dim lighting, today when I looked during the day I could see more of the difference, and in photos especially!

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

Clean the original diamond and hang on to it for a while, compare the two in different lights, different times of day. You'll see things this week you didn't last week. It's very interesting and rewarding.

 

[mrsctobe]

Clean the original diamond and hang on to it for a while, compare the two in different lights, different times of day. You'll see things this week you didn't last week. It's very interesting and rewarding.

Thank you, I will do that! What do you expect I'll find?

 

[Double E]

Thank you! I'll need to figure out what to do with the old one and yes, I didnt notice a big visual difference at first but then again I compared them at night in dim lighting, today when I looked during the day I could see more of the difference, and in photos especially!

Under dim light, say some restaurant lighting is one of the conditions where you see the most differences.
My wife also has two stones, similar to yours, one more generic, one super ideal, but smaller. The difference is still obvious.

 

[mrsctobe]

Under dim light, say some restaurant lighting is one of the conditions where you see the most differences.
My wife also has two stones, similar to yours, one more generic, one super ideal, but smaller. The difference is still obvious.

Great point! Yes I have only seen them compared in indoor midday lighting, when I took those pictures. I'll spend some more time in different settings

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

mrsctobe, honestly, I don't know, but i suspect it will develop your eye. Your original diamond might have qualities that surprise you, if not, it'll be an exercise in superior cut, which is hardly a waste of time. But sometimes you find an aspect in the inferior stone that delights you. Either way, just keep an open mind. I have two Asschers in a box that I've looked at for a month, one is branded and the other is generic. Different light, different time of day, they keep confounding me.

 

[mrsctobe]

mrsctobe, honestly, I don't know, but i suspect it will develop your eye. Your original diamond might have qualities that surprise you, if not, it'll be an exercise in superior cut, which is hardly a waste of time. But sometimes you find an aspect in the inferior stone that delights you. Either way, just keep an open mind. I have two Asschers in a box that I've looked at for a month, one is branded and the other is generic. Different light, different time of day, they keep confounding me.

Great advice! I'll wear them around more and learn their comparative qualities.

 

[Wink]

Just curious, which lab said your first diamond was ideal, ideal, ideal?

Was is AGS or one of the second or third tier labs?

Wink

 

[mrsctobe]

Just curious, which lab said your first diamond was ideal, ideal, ideal?

Was is AGS or one of the second or third tier labs?

Wink

Hi Wink! Definitely wasnt AGS, it was EGL - what I would now consider to be third tier. But for the ordinary folks who dont know much about diamonds, all the certifications seem the same (me, 8 years ago..)

 

[mrsctobe]

Clean the original diamond and hang on to it for a while, compare the two in different lights, different times of day. You'll see things this week you didn't last week. It's very interesting and rewarding.

Took your advice and cleaned it super well, and checked it out again today in different lighting (not cloudy day, shaded light)


Top ACA, bottom original

Top ACA, bottom original


Top ACA, bottom original

To be honest, they are both very clear and sparkley. the only thing i really can see the difference now is those hearts and arrows and cut shape, clear as day in the sunlight (especially the arrows!)

Also, now that i am seeing my original diamond next to a letter grade I ACA, i am suspicious that the original was graded inaccurately.. it seemed to have more of a tint (Its graded an H, but by a worse lab), I never noticed this before. The original damond also has fluorescence, which may make it appear whiter, but in that bottom photo and in dim light i really feel like it is slightly more yellow/colored than my I-graded ACA..

 

[yssie]

Your diamond is beautiful!

I saw this one yesterday which I was curious about as it had a great video and within the ideal parameters, HCA 1.4 but has a not so great idealscope image. Always pays to check advanced imaging!

IS is fine.
Stone’s tilted in the IS too.
Nice non branded stone.
What’s the issue you see?

 

[Wink]

To be honest, they are both very clear and sparkley. the only thing i really can see the difference now is those hearts and arrows and cut shape, clear as day in the sunlight (especially the arrows!)

Over time, as your visual palate improves, you will be able to see more and more differences. At this time the differences are going to seem minor, and in a year or two you will be shocked at how much more you see the differences.

@yssie is correct that both are beautiful, yet, in my opinion, one is more beautiful.

 

[mrsctobe]

Over time, as your visual palate improves, you will be able to see more and more differences. At this time the differences are going to seem minor, and in a year or two you will be shocked at how much more you see the differences.

@yssie is correct that both are beautiful, yet, in my opinion, one is more beautiful.

Thanks Wink! youre right that the differences seem extremely minor to me now, but I have only compared them twice (ever) and these are honestly the only diamonds i have ever looked at in person up close for extended periods of time.. I think youre right in that I'll see more and more over time. Appreciate the comment

 

[TXwidow]

a good example of the answer to those folks that ask

'is it worth it to spend the money for an ideal diamond (not from GIA or EGL); can I really tell the difference?"

 

[lanz88]

IS is fine.
Stone’s tilted in the IS too.
Nice non branded stone.
What’s the issue you see?

Light leakage under the table but I have no idea really - I’m still learning

 

[mrsctobe]

Light leakage under the table but I have no idea really - I’m still learning

Not sure if youve already done that but if you post a stone and its stats in a thread here, people can weigh in and give super helpful feedback on whether its worth the purchase! Thats what I did.

 

[mrsctobe]

a good example of the answer to those folks that ask

'is it worth it to spend the money for an ideal diamond (not from GIA or EGL); can I really tell the difference?"

Yes, exactly. I knew, before purchasing a stone from EGL, that they were more "loose" with grading but I figured as long as I got it appraised and it seemed accurate, it would be fine because it wouldnt be all stones that would be over graded..

 

[lovedogs]

This is a perfect example of why I always tell folks not to buy from EGL (And why I woudn't either).

 

[mrsctobe]

This is a perfect example of why I always tell folks not to buy from EGL (And why I woudn't either).

Yep, I didnt believe it when I first heard it (thought it was just a way to get people to buy more expensive gimmicky stones) but nope

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

Thank you for the thread! To be honest, once you posted the pic of the cleaned diamonds I don't see that much difference between the two. I mean, there is a difference of course, but it's not as stark to my eye as it was in the first pic you posted. I think I might be one of those people for whom in the event that I'm buying rounds, GIA 3Ex, especially those that are biased towards white light return, would suffice! I would not buy EGL because of the looseness in colour and/or clarity grading though, which most people seem to experience.

 

[yssie]

@yssie is correct that both are beautiful, yet, in my opinion, one is more beautiful.

I think we’re referring to different stones. - I’m not referring to OP’s original. However the IS from JA that she posted is fine, outside of overly strong backlighting. Pretty sure OP hasn’t seen that one in person.