What makes a diamond ideal/ super ideal?

[John P]

JP,
I just have one small bone to pick and it's probably just semantics. But AGSL light performance grading does measure dispersion and it is real and relevant. Because fire is not exhibited in all lighting conditions, it is accurate to say that the measurement represents 'potential' for fire, which is probably the same your term 'postulated". But dispersion is based on the physics of light and can be measured mathematically, so a given diamond's ability to produce fire can be calculated and compared against other diamond's.

Ok. I love picking bones, though I hope not to derail this thread with minutiae - so here’s the short of it.

1. Any such "measurement" is capped. It's a pass/fail proposition. That is logical; in order to build a system producers would use, AGSL had to establish ranges most producers can cut to. Once a diamond exceeds the “pass” level there’s no further reward. A minimally successful 0 gets the same acknowledgment as a superior 0 with greater compound mirror integrity and larger spectral fans (technically this applies to brightness, contrast and leakage too, but those are easier nuts to crack).

2. The grading system uses reverse ray-tracing (what happens in the environment). A true “measurement” would require the more complex forward ray-tracing (what happens at the observers’ eyes). Such a calculation must involve the entire panorama of illumination and every possible direction of rays entering the stone. The required computer overhead initially killed this; it’s basically infinite, so it was not included as part of the current grading system for RBs - They developed a shortcut for newer proprietary cuts, but that's another story.

3. GIGO. Even if we overcome #1 and #2, scan error is an unavoidable wet blanket. Unlike basic brightness, secondary and tertiary reflections which are critical to compound mirror analysis, become exponentially distorted with today's scans. Until scan technology improves we will not succeed in definitive micro measurements.

And that was my short reply...Yikes.

So yes and no Bryan. I can agree that dispersive potential is "measured" by AGSL. But it’s capped, with no graduated system capable of detailing achievement beyond that cap, and it's not diamond-specific. Thus (unfortunately) it's not decisive for our purposes.

 

[John P]

Put it this way: CBI is so precise that they can't put their polishing and symmetry facility near airports or roads because vibrations from outside sources will interfere with the precision.

I think this is why superideals won't be cheaper (it costs extra money to make super ideals) and why another cutting house can't really accidentally make one.

That is correct. However, most cutting houses do not even bother.

Want to know why? Get some popcorn…

1. The diamond tradition: For 100 years producers were not held accountable to a cut quality standard. In fact, if you were born before 2006 you were living during a time when GIA was grading only 3Cs and the impact of cut on appearance was ignored. This kept producers happy but was a glaring disservice to consumers. There was a growing outcry for cut-assessment so the American Gem Society launched a lab in 1996... The AGSL was considered nerdy and niche (and still is). The major producers sent (and send) only a fraction of diamonds to AGSL, which was (is) proportionate to the niche audience of performance-focused jewelers and consumers who did (do) research on the topic… Bottom line: Prior to 2006, there was no economical reason for major producers to give attention to cut-quality improvement.

2. The last decade: GIA’s 2006 cut-grade for round brilliants changed diamond production. This new standard penalized shallow stones. So producers shifted their output to much steeper-deeper proportions sets. Here we are today, and shallow, flat-topped and even beautiful 60-60 style diamonds (with shallow crowns) have nearly disappeared from mass-productions. Meanwhile, diamonds cut with pavilion angles >41 degrees combined with crown angles >35 degrees have exploded onto the scene… Bottom line: Major producers plan many diamonds to reach the minimal threshold of a cut-grade while also maximizing yield. We are in the era of steep “excellents.”

3A. GIA assessment now: The system was developed using human observations. It now applies rounded averages to lookup charts. Over time producers have learned to game this system. One diamond’s eight crown facets could be cut to a tight group of 34.4, 34.4, 34.4, 34.5, 34.5, 34.6, 34.6, 34.6 and the GIA report will read 34.5. Another diamond could be churned out at 34.1, 34.3, 34.5, 34.5, 34.6, 34.8, 34.9, 35.0 and (guess what) the GIA report will also read 34.5. Producers know they need only hit the averages – which get further rounded – to make the target grade… Bottom line: Technology and tools have improved, so there has been an increase in overall consistency, yet the steeper-deeper targets have resulted in an (arguable) reduction in overall brightness.

3B. AGS assessment now: Taking a 3D scan of the diamond, AGSL uses repeatable ray-tracing science to return meaningful values for brightness, contrast, leakage and dispersion-potential. It’s a higher level of accountability than GIA, but far fewer diamonds are sent there (per the above). When the AGS Platinum Report is issued, with its dual light-performance map, the ASET imprints can be used to identify likely areas of painting, digging or light loss. However scan technology is imperfect. In fact, specific to our production, we regularly request re-scans and re-prints because the lab’s scan is not equal to the level of the diamond's precision-cutting (see above to Whitewave’s post…and yes, we have suggested to labs to remove themselves from areas with ground vibrations for scanning purposes…easier suggested than done).

So what’s the big deal? Keeping it real...for many there is no big deal. A diamond is often a symbol more than anything. So the current system and assessments serve many just as they are. I have no problem acknowledging diamonds can be awesome to people, whether or not they have topmost cut quality. But, as with wine, food, music, cars, bicycles, audio-components or (insert your proclivity here)… There is an undeniable audience interested in higher levels of craftsmanship. For the modern round brilliant that usually involves brightness, fire and sparkle. How do we optimize those?

Well. Brightness is already measured by labs. Top GIA and AGS graded diamonds will have strong brightness, with minimal dead areas. But for fire and sparkle we come to areas that are not decisively measured. Maximizing fire involves fine-tuning all of the internal mirrors in three-dimensions. The goal is larger, unbroken internal reflections, boosting wider spectral fans of dispersion which can be perceived by the eyes as bigger, bolder bursts of fire. Intensifying scintillation relies on great brightness and dispersion-output, along with a crisp, balanced contrast pattern which is dynamic through a range of tilt.

With the above stated, I'll return to the subject question which started this thread:

EX: Most of the world’s mass-production facilities have 2,3 or 4 diamond polishers on a wheel hitting the assigned average and passing the diamond down the line, ultimately aiming for assigned averages.

Ideal: Even fine-make floors of major producers where "Ideal" output is the goal have polishers sharing tangs, dops, etc., but they aim at a more refined basic target, usually with greater consistency.

Super Ideal: (not a standardized term). As we apply it, this involves a separate, conscious effort in sourcing, planning and execution. At the highest level it’s done in a space removed from external vibration. Superior tools. Experienced labor, each polisher using his own equipment and lubrication. More importantly, all work falls under an umbrella of understanding that extra time and (gasp) more carat-weight will be spent coaxing, cajoling and fine-tuning the world’s hardest natural substance to an unreal level of physical and optical precision. It’s not normal. It requires passion and commitment. And, in case it isn’t clear, it typically requires more effort for less reward.

I hope the history and context is interesting.

 

[ChristineRose]

I'm going to have to disappoint you I'm afraid.

The chevrons at 12:05 and 3 o'clock are slightly crooked.
The six o'clock heart is visibly shorter than the eight o'clock heart.
Twelve o'clock has a small but visible cleft in the heart, but five o'clock doesn't.

Some of this might be because of the photograph.
This is clearly an ideal, and some might even call it an H&A. And in practice, you might not see any difference under realistic viewing conditions. But I wouldn't call this up to the standards of a superideal.

 

[whitewave]

@blingblingdiamond it is going to be a pretty ideal cut diamond.

@John Pollard thank you so much for your discourse. I found it fascinating.

 

[Karl_K]

I'm going to have to disappoint you I'm afraid.

The chevrons at 12:05 and 3 o'clock are slightly crooked.
The six o'clock heart is visibly shorter than the eight o'clock heart.
Twelve o'clock has a small but visible cleft in the heart, but five o'clock doesn't.

Some of this might be because of the photograph.
This is clearly an ideal, and some might even call it an H&A. And in practice, you might not see any difference under realistic viewing conditions. But I wouldn't call this up to the standards of a superideal.

The camera is not parallel to the scope and diamond which accounts for some of the distortion.
However you are picking up on and confirmed by the ASET there is variation in the lower girdle/lower halves facets.
It is h&a in my book.
However not the top end of h&a nor the top end of super-ideal in my book.

Edit: there are likely variations in the pavilion mains that are causing the lgf to be off.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

That is correct. However, most cutting houses do not even bother.

Want to know why? Get some popcorn…

1. The diamond tradition: For 100 years producers were not held accountable to a cut quality standard. In fact, if you were born before 2006 you were living during a time when GIA was grading only 3Cs and the impact of cut on appearance was ignored. This kept producers happy but was a glaring disservice to consumers. There was a growing outcry for cut-assessment so the American Gem Society launched a lab in 1996... The AGSL was considered nerdy and niche (and still is). The major producers sent (and send) only a fraction of diamonds to AGSL, which was (is) proportionate to the niche audience of performance-focused jewelers and consumers who did (do) research on the topic… Bottom line: Prior to 2006, there was no economical reason for major producers to give attention to cut-quality improvement.

2. The last decade: GIA’s 2006 cut-grade for round brilliants changed diamond production. This new standard penalized shallow stones. So producers shifted their output to much steeper-deeper proportions sets. Here we are today, and shallow, flat-topped and even beautiful 60-60 style diamonds (with shallow crowns) have nearly disappeared from mass-productions. Meanwhile, diamonds cut with pavilion angles >41 degrees combined with crown angles >35 degrees have exploded onto the scene… Bottom line: Major producers plan many diamonds to reach the minimal threshold of a cut-grade while also maximizing yield. We are in the era of steep “excellents.”

3A. GIA assessment now: The system was developed using human observations. It now applies rounded averages to lookup charts. Over time producers have learned to game this system. One diamond’s eight crown facets could be cut to a tight group of 34.4, 34.4, 34.4, 34.5, 34.5, 34.6, 34.6, 34.6 and the GIA report will read 34.5. Another diamond could be churned out at 34.1, 34.3, 34.5, 34.5, 34.6, 34.8, 34.9, 35.0 and (guess what) the GIA report will also read 34.5. Producers know they need only hit the averages – which get further rounded – to make the target grade… Bottom line: Technology and tools have improved, so there has been an increase in overall consistency, yet the steeper-deeper targets have resulted in an (arguable) reduction in overall brightness.

3B. AGS assessment now: Taking a 3D scan of the diamond, AGSL uses repeatable ray-tracing science to return meaningful values for brightness, contrast, leakage and dispersion-potential. It’s a higher level of accountability than GIA, but far fewer diamonds are sent there (per the above). When the AGS Platinum Report is issued, with its dual light-performance map, the ASET imprints can be used to identify likely areas of painting, digging or light loss. However scan technology is imperfect. In fact, specific to our production, we regularly request re-scans and re-prints because the lab’s scan is not equal to the level of the diamond's precision-cutting (see above to Whitewave’s post…and yes, we have suggested to labs to remove themselves from areas with ground vibrations for scanning purposes…easier suggested than done).

So what’s the big deal? Keeping it real...for many there is no big deal. A diamond is often a symbol more than anything. So the current system and assessments serve many just as they are. I have no problem acknowledging diamonds can be awesome to people, whether or not they have topmost cut quality. But, as with wine, food, music, cars, bicycles, audio-components or (insert your proclivity here)… There is an undeniable audience interested in higher levels of craftsmanship. For the modern round brilliant that usually involves brightness, fire and sparkle. How do we optimize those?

Well. Brightness is already measured by labs. Top GIA and AGS graded diamonds will have strong brightness, with minimal dead areas. But for fire and sparkle we come to areas that are not decisively measured. Maximizing fire involves fine-tuning all of the internal mirrors in three-dimensions. The goal is larger, unbroken internal reflections, boosting wider spectral fans of dispersion which can be perceived by the eyes as bigger, bolder bursts of fire. Intensifying scintillation relies on great brightness and dispersion-output, along with a crisp, balanced contrast pattern which is dynamic through a range of tilt.

With the above stated, I'll return to the subject question which started this thread:

EX: Most of the world’s mass-production facilities have 2,3 or 4 diamond polishers on a wheel hitting the assigned average and passing the diamond down the line, ultimately aiming for assigned averages.

Ideal: Even fine-make floors of major producers where "Ideal" output is the goal have polishers sharing tangs, dops, etc., but they aim at a more refined basic target, usually with greater consistency.

Super Ideal: (not a standardized term). As we apply it, this involves a separate, conscious effort in sourcing, planning and execution. At the highest level it’s done in a space removed from external vibration. Superior tools. Experienced labor, each polisher using his own equipment and lubrication. More importantly, all work falls under an umbrella of understanding that extra time and (gasp) more carat-weight will be spent coaxing, cajoling and fine-tuning the world’s hardest natural substance to an unreal level of physical and optical precision. It’s not normal. It requires passion and commitment. And, in case it isn’t clear, it typically requires more effort for less reward.

I hope the history and context is interesting.

John,
I can see you writing a sequel to Al Giberson's excellent book on the history of the Ideal cut; "Obsessed with Light Performance : The History of the Super Ideal" by J. Pollard.

But don't feel like you have to have to wait 100 years!

 

[cflutist]

John,
I can see you writing a sequel to Al Giberson's excellent book on the history of the Ideal cut; "Obsessed with Light Performance : The History of the Super Ideal" by J. Pollard.

But don't feel like you have to have to wait 100 years!

I would love to read such a book Sir John. Every time I read one of his dissertations, he makes my head spin.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Fantastic description of what goes into the term "Super ideal" John!

Super Ideal: (not a standardized term). As we apply it, this involves a separate, conscious effort in sourcing, planning and execution. At the highest level it’s done in a space removed from external vibration. Superior tools. Experienced labor, each polisher using his own equipment and lubrication. More importantly, all work falls under an umbrella of understanding that extra time and (gasp) more carat-weight will be spent coaxing, cajoling and fine-tuning the world’s hardest natural substance to an unreal level of physical and optical precision. It’s not normal. It requires passion and commitment. And, in case it isn’t clear, it typically requires more effort for less reward.

I hope the history and context is interesting.

Having had experience with CBI stones, I wholeheartedly agree, the stones that we are calling"super ideal" here are indeed special. And super rare. Luckily, it seems that there's a small group of boutique cutters that seem to be able to hold ground in a completely upended diamond cutting market.
Based on my experience, I have found that there's a subset of buyers who place cut at a super high priority- and for them, a "super ideal" is definitely the way to go.
From that perspective, the rarity, quality of cut, documentation, and added value policies associated with "Super Ideals" a not a marketing term- these are tangible assets.

I do get why HDer asked what he did....it is a very cut oriented room

 

[whitewave]

I've been thinking this in my head, so wanted to add. My original engagement stone is a lovely .75 mrb, uncertified, H, super stong fluro, I1 (eye clean) from 1993.

This CBI/HPD ring that I have been wearing (.56 G SI2) certainly FEELS nearly as large as the .75 was. The .75 was larger... I'm not claiming the .56 is as large. I would think people would say it was .66- .70 if I knew people irl who could guess diamond sizes....

Could someone speak to that?

Is it the strong optical performance that makes it seem larger?

 

[LLJsmom]

I've been thinking this in my head, so wanted to add. My original engagement stone is a lovely .75 mrb, uncertified, H, super stong fluro, I1 (eye clean) from 1993.

This CBI/HPD ring that I have been wearing (.56 G SI2) certainly FEELS nearly as large as the .75 was. The .75 was larger... I'm not claiming the .56 is as large. I would think people would say it was .66- .70 if I knew people irl who could guess diamond sizes....

Could someone speak to that?

Is it the strong optical performance that makes it seem larger?

Just strictly based on my observations of diamonds in general, for me, this is the case. A diamond that sparkles from edge to edge, as I've seen a super ideal do (the biggest I've seen was a 2.5 ct (ish) from CBI) looked huge because the I felt like I could see more of the diamond. It lit up everywhere and constantly as it moved. It's strictly just what my very poor eyesight observes. I feel that way about my OEC. I see facets light up all over, center, edge, etc. I did not feel that way about my 2.59 MRB. Sorry, just my wackadoodle theory and observation. Not scientific at all.

 

[cflutist]

All diamonds look great under jewelers lights. But a super ideal should be able to perform in almost all lighting conditions. Here are some photos of my 2.21 F-SI1 CBI in a darkened theater on a cruise ship. I still see fire and dispersion.

Can't wait to see my 2.79 F-VS1 CBI on our next cruise, hint, hint @Wink @Winks_Elf

 

[blingblingdiamond]

The camera is not parallel to the scope and diamond which accounts for some of the distortion.
However you are picking up on and confirmed by the ASET there is variation in the lower girdle/lower halves facets.
It is h&a in my book.
However not the top end of h&a nor the top end of super-ideal in my book.

Edit: there are likely variations in the pavilion mains that are causing the lgf to be off.

Thank you. I tried to understand the differences between h&a and superideal. I read the information from the following link and it seems like if a diamond is h&a, and has the best optics performances, then it will be superideal. With either one of two won't make a diamond superideal? Sorry if my understanding is not wrong I am very new and English is my weakness. =P. Thank you!

https://www.whiteflash.com/hearts-and-arrows-diamonds.aspx#idealcut

 

[Karl_K]

Thank you. I tried to understand the differences between h&a and superideal. I read the information from the following link and it seems like if a diamond is h&a, and has the best optics performances, then it will be superideal. With either one of two won't make a diamond superideal? Sorry if my understanding is not wrong I am very new and English is my weakness. =P. Thank you!

https://www.whiteflash.com/hearts-and-arrows-diamonds.aspx#idealcut

It is really complex and there are differences in opinion and details.
But no being h&a doesn't make a diamond super-ideal and not all super-ideal diamonds are h&a.
For example a diamond could have good grade lab symmetry and good grade polish and be h&a.
H&A is both high optical symmetry and with in certain proportion sets.
There are other proportion sets that can be considered super-ideal and are highly optically symmetrical but not be h&a because the patterns formed are not h&a, for example have clefts in the hearts due to longer lower girdle facets than allowed for h&a.

 

[gm89uk]

It is really complex and there are differences in opinion and details.
But no being h&a doesn't make a diamond super-ideal and not all super-ideal diamonds are h&a.
For example a diamond could have good grade lab symmetry and good grade polish and be h&a.
H&A is both high optical symmetry and with in certain proportion sets.
There are other proportion sets that can be considered super-ideal and are highly optically symmetrical but not be h&a because the patterns formed are not h&a, for example have clefts in the hearts due to longer lower girdle facets than allowed for h&a.

What no one has really described is what effect some of none H&A features have.

'the heart here is marginally smaller than this heart, and there is a small cleft here'...so what??

Consider this diamond: 35/40.8 57/62.1



Skinnish arrows, visible clefts, great light return. What are the consequences of these clefts with regards to performance, other than losing bragging rights that it's not H&A?

Why does it matter if one heart is slightly smaller as long as the face down ASET looks great, without any obstruction?

Personally I only care about obstruction and light leakage, as long as the arrows look good, I'm happy... But then again no one has ever explained why slightly asymmetrical hearts, some yaw, some clefts make a difference, such as above, if the ASSET holds up.


.

 

[Karl_K]

gm89uk, the answer is extremely complex.
The simple answer starts with craftsmanship. I am willing to pay small premium for it.
The long answer starts with lighting and covers ASET limitations, virtual facets, eyesight and human perception and a bit of disagreement.
I have been having migraine level headaches again and today is a bad day so its going to be a while before I can discuss it.

 

[ChristineRose]

However you define terms like H&A, superideal, or ideal, there will be a point when a stone just fails to make the grade, and you won't be able to tell the difference.

And then there's a point where the difference is enough so that you can tell the difference.

Part of the point of getting a perfect superideal is that it was cut to be the best of the best and you know you are within that line. But if you are looking for a cheaper diamonds that looks just as good, you probably found one.

 

[Rockdiamond]

As someone who appreciates why Super Ideals are special, I also find that the advantages are sometimes overstated.
For example.....I got a super ideal and it knocked 20 strokes off my golf game. It also caused me to loose that stubborn 20 pounds....
THe point is, the differences are there- but they are subtle, and not always what you think they will be
Just one example is spread. Super Ideals are not spready diamonds.
You can make a case that the light spreads out in a way that makes the stone look larger- but spread isn't a strong point in Super Ideals.
There are well cut GIA EX stones that have noticeably larger spread compared to a super ideal of the same weight.

 

[John P]

But then again no one has ever explained why slightly asymmetrical hearts, some yaw, some clefts make a difference, such as above, if the ASSET holds up.

ASET shows overall brightness and basic cut consistency. What you're asking about goes to a higher order of complexity.

Virtual facet pattern and compound mirror integrity influence differences in the size and frequency of observable colored and white flashes, as well as the intensity and character of scintillation. There is abundant research about these things by science professionals, but the components are not yet applied in lab grading systems due to complexities of environment (see my post to Texas Leaguer atop this page), along with variable human physiology and taste considerations.

At its core:"The higher the order of precision, the larger the virtual facets." - Peter Yantzer

• Left panel: If a spectral fan passes over our eye and is large enough to be wider than our pupil diameter we see color (fire).
• Center panel: If the spectral fan is smaller than our pupil diameter, but large enough to have intensity, the light is recombined and we see a white flash.
• Right panel: If the spectral fan is less intense than our ability to detect, too small, muted or obscured we see nothing.

Detail: Optical precision and resultant virtual facets.


If you have, as prerequisite, a diamond with geometry that (1) optimizes brightness and (2) creates room for dispersion: Higher orders of optical precision increase the likelihood of our physiological perception of both fire (colored flashes) and recombined light (white flashes) in a diamond. Additionally, when the diamond, viewer of light source move, higher orders of precision promote a sharper 'on-off' quality to the scintillation as the contrast pattern shifts.

Here is prior explanation about virtual facets, dispersion and how our brains perceive fire. It regards an EC in this case, but the science and linked journal article apply. They are good primers.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/virtual-facets-and-patterns-discussion-about-step-cuts

 

[John P]

However you define terms like H&A, superideal, or ideal, there will be a point when a stone just fails to make the grade, and you won't be able to tell the difference. And then there's a point where the difference is enough so that you can tell the difference. Part of the point of getting a perfect superideal is that it was cut to be the best of the best and you know you are within that line. But if you are looking for a cheaper diamonds that looks just as good, you probably found one.

Possibly. But as it relates to the specific title of this thread, human perception plays a big role.

Over the last ten years I've been party to hundreds (thousands?) of consumer viewings involving all diamond qualities. It's ongoing; I'll be party to more in Seattle this week, Albuquerque the next, St. Louis the next...etc.

Casual shoppers have typically never seen a diamond with the focused crafting goals outlined in this thread. When they do, most people perceive the described differences, even compared to generic ideal makes. Some people perceive the differences less. Occasionally some won't see a difference at all, even standing next to others who do.

Vision is no different than smell, hearing or taste. Some people have very sensitive visual palates. Others less-so. When exposed to a wide array of qualities and characters, those visual palates can be improved with time; no different than training a sommelier.

Karl mentioned an appreciation for extreme demonstrable craftsmanship. That's present (especially with engineers, architects and science pros) and can buoy a purchase decision. But most final decisions are primarily driven by what one sees, or doesn't. That's not limited to performance, it also relates to bursting preconceptions about color and clarity - which never gets old.

Taste also comes into play. Shape aesthetic, preference for a larger tabled diamond, a more scattered/disorganized character to performance, etc. There is a lot of diversity out there.

In the macro there are abundant solutions. What's important is matching the aesthetic, quality-proposition, value and background to what the client desires - whether that is a "super ideal," a generic EX, some clarity-enhanced whopper, a heart-shaped pink or a rock from the moon. "Show them everything, provide education, and let them decide."

 

[John P]

As someone who appreciates why Super Ideals are special, I also find that the advantages are sometimes overstated.

Possibly, but it's a sliding scale. See the post directly above.

 

[Rockdiamond]

We agree that tastes and ability to perceive small differences are very individual- and there's quite a bit of variance from one person to another.
My point, John, is that I've found shoppers falsely attributing aspects of diamonds in person, and also here on the forum.
As an example of in person, or telephone shoppers- a lot of folks will tell us they want a very sparkly diamond, so they are not willing to consider SI goods. Of course, the two aspects are not necessarily directly related.
We take the time to educate every single one.

On this forum, it's more about ideas/posts that attribute things to super ideal diamonds falsely.
Someone gets a super ideal- and they love it- understandably.
But then they may draw conclusions based on comparisons to their prior stone which are not broadly valid.
Based on a lot of what's commonly written on PS, a super ideal kills other comparison stones. It looks larger, brighter, shows less color.
But these aspects are not always directly related to the super ideal status. And there are non super ideals that may outperform a super ideal in spread for the carat weight, or the ability to hide color. Many consumers/participants may have never made the correct real live comparisons and take these aspects as gospel.

Casual shoppers have typically never seen a diamond with the focused crafting goals outlined in this thread. When they do, most people perceive the described differences, even compared to generic ideal makes. Some people perceive the differences less. Occasionally some won't see a difference at all, even standing next to others who do.

I'm sure you'll agree that of the people who can see the difference, not every single one picks the super ideal. There is indeed a lot of diversity.

Fire is another great example of an aspect that's commonly discussed without the proper context.
If fire is the subject, actual facet size is an important factor.
A larger stone, less well cut, can certainly create more perceivable fire events than a better cut stone in a smaller size.
In two hypothetical stones cut identically, same color and clarity, a 5.00 will show a lot more fire than a .50ct.

Again- I love super ideals- and why they are special. But they won't improve your golf game, or your waistline

 

[gm89uk]

Many thanks all for the explanations.
@Rockdiamond, your repeated examples of small Vs large carat for fire is one I've never seen much sense in, a consumer looking to maximise fire will do so with in a budget, so 0.5 Vs 5 carat is not a useful comparison.

To put it in terms of fire/dollar a better example would be 2.7 carat superideal Vs 3 carat ideal/spready diamond. At that level I think superideals probably maximise fire/dollar

 

[HDer]

Is fire proportional to length or area? Given that it's a plane that's reflecting I'll assume it's proportional to area. So let's take the example of 2 carats vs 1.5. Each of the planes in the 2 carat is (2/1.5)^(2/3) = 1.2 times as big as the 1.5.

Does a super ideal give off 20% more fire? I don't know but I want to find out.

 

[blingblingdiamond]

Thanks anyone for the input and explanation.

Besides this topic, I want to add that I visited idj today! I really wanted to thank Yekutiel. He has been really patient to help me with the diamond selection process. Here is the diamond sitting on a setting:

Handshot with a wedding band (those small melees are D-E color. So I could clearly see the warmth)

The 1.66K is one the right and a 1.3 J h&a is on the left(no fluoro):

Yekutiel said they are equal white. I kinda agree. To some extent their color looked the same, although I sometimes could see the J was tiny little bit whiter (really just a little bit). But my boyfriend said the 1.66k is even prettier because he could see more sparkles coming out from it and he could see a hint of blue! (This diamond has VSB fluor) It is a fireball!
1.66 k on the right

I know many of you guys dont recommend k color diamond as ering. I once couldnt take a k color diamknd either but i just couldnt pass on this diamond! With this price, this cut is very ideal. It sparkles a lot too! Also i confirmed that idj does offer upgrade. Even though Yekutiel said it is not a diamond i would want to trade in as it is a bomb!!

I will post a video later. I am still on my way home! Took a day off to meet Yekutiel and look at the diamond haha

Also, any recommendation of wedding band that goes with this tapered ering? I would like a plain one but it's hard to find it that this ering can sit on it flatly.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Is fire proportional to length or area? Given that it's a plane that's reflecting I'll assume it's proportional to area. So let's take the example of 2 carats vs 1.5. Each of the planes in the 2 carat is (2/1.5)^(2/3) = 1.2 times as big as the 1.5.

Does a super ideal give off 20% more fire? I don't know but I want to find out.

Is fire proportional to length or area? Given that it's a plane that's reflecting I'll assume it's proportional to area. So let's take the example of 2 carats vs 1.5. Each of the planes in the 2 carat is (2/1.5)^(2/3) = 1.2 times as big as the 1.5.

Does a super ideal give off 20% more fire? I don't know but I want to find out.

If you are really interested in the super ideal idea, you need to take a field trip! Whiteflash and BGD are in Texas, Wink Jones/CBI is in Idaho and GOG is in Long Island, NY. Any of these vendors would be happy to have you visit so that you can do some comparisons with your own eyes. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; there are many things that we buy that cannot be compared in mathematical terms. Only you can determine in a true taste test if you prefer them or would want to pay the premium for them. Even if someone could tell me that a super ideal produced 24% more fire or only just 12% more fire, I still wouldn't care about those figures because I liked what I saw. We're all different and have different perceptions of beauty and value and one isn't necessarily predicated on the other.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Many thanks all for the explanations.
@Rockdiamond, your repeated examples of small Vs large carat for fire is one I've never seen much sense in, a consumer looking to maximise fire will do so with in a budget, so 0.5 Vs 5 carat is not a useful comparison.

To put it in terms of fire/dollar a better example would be 2.7 carat superideal Vs 3 carat ideal/spready diamond. At that level I think superideals probably maximise fire/dollar

The part in bold would make for a very interesting comparison. You might be surprised.

Congratulationss blingblingdiamond!!

 

[gm89uk]

Congratulations, the 1.661 carat looks incredibly well cut and far closer to true H&A than most.

 

[cflutist]

If you are really interested in the super ideal idea, you need to take a field trip! Whiteflash and BGD are in Texas, Wink Jones/CBI is in Idaho and GOG is in Long Island, NY. Any of these vendors would be happy to have you visit so that you can do some comparisons with your own eyes. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; there are many things that we buy that cannot be compared in mathematical terms. Only you can determine in a true taste test if you prefer them or would want to pay the premium for them. Even if someone could tell me that a super ideal produced 24% more fire or only just 12% more fire, I still wouldn't care about those figures because I liked what I saw. We're all different and have different perceptions of beauty and value and one isn't necessarily predicated on the other.

Great idea MissGotRocks. It’s true. Most people have never seen diamonds like these.

I’d just add that Crafted by Infinity diamonds are also available in a couple of dozen showrooms around the USA and Europe. Locations can be found at the link below. I’d encourage anyone close to make a trip just for the fun of it.

I knew that after I saw a CBI at a local Meet the Cutter Event, that I wanted one of these diamonds. Oh wait, I have two of them now

https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonds/diamonds-city

 

[Karl_K]

I know many of you guys dont recommend k color diamond as ering.

Congrates!!!
I wanted to comment on this, color is color there are no bad nor good colors, it is what it is and the perception of that color is very individual.
When shopping for a diamond in person or viewing it unset during the return period or the person that will wear it has experience with k colored diamonds then awesome if they like them! On the other hand for a diamond that is a surprise and the person has never experienced a k colored diamond I would hesitate to recomend a k.
Not that there is anything wrong with it, but that it might not be right for the person receiving it. I know many would be happy with the emotion behind it, but viewing it up against friends diamonds they might wonder why it shows more color.
Then again if all the friends have igi/egl graded stones maybe not.
A ton of would be gia/ags k colored stones have been sold as a higher color grade with a soft labs report.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I'd guess that 80% of the people on the street had never seen a top ideal cut in their life, so all diamonds would look the same to them.