Which is more important? Fire or brightness?

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Redoing HCA & an App!
Many like old cuts, chunky cushions and retro cuts - maybe I should raise the fire weighting?

 

[kenny]

Both of course.

But if 100 otherwise-identical diamonds were placed on a table in a straight line and they ranged from max brightness but minimum fire on the left to max fire but minimum brightness on the right, and a 'perfect balance' in the middle ... I'd probably pick the diamond that was 10 diamonds to the right of the middle for a bit more fire.

I really really value fire, but don't want a dark diamond.

 

[teobdl]

Both of course.

But if 100 otherwise-identical diamonds were placed on a table in a straight line and they ranged from max brightness but minimum fire on the left to max fire but minimum brightness on the right, and a 'perfect balance' in the middle ... I'd probably pick the diamond that was 10 diamonds to the right of the middle for a bit more fire.

I really really value fire, but don't want a dark diamond.

+1

 

[oldminer]

Brilliancy is highly important. Fire is a much more variable attribute that is inherently present in all normally faceted diamonds, but can change greatly depending on the lighting. If you go after making a diamond display more fire, you will lose brilliancy and the trade off is not likely to have appeal, especially in lighting where fire becomes less apparent and brilliancy remains somewhat diminished.

If you want high fire and high brilliancy, an amount of fire above the norm, then having the stone nano-engraved by the new company offering this service would make you a very happy diamond owner. Fire can be increased dramatically with no loss of brilliancy and no eye-visible changes to the diamond due to the nano-engraving on the pavilion.

Tiffany & Co seems to have decided upon a diamond with icy whiteness and not strong on fire. I believe their store lighting and their diamond cutting diminish fire and stress brilliancy... Maybe one of the vendors here with really super performing diamonds in their top branded cut might wish to comment on the degree of fire in their diamonds and what their preference is in this regard. I tend to believe it is a secondary concern for those cutting super-fine diamonds as fire just naturally is a part of a well cut diamond.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Brilliancy is highly important. Fire is a much more variable attribute that is inherently present in all normally faceted diamonds, but can change greatly depending on the lighting. If you go after making a diamond display more fire, you will lose brilliancy and the trade off is not likely to have appeal, especially in lighting where fire becomes less apparent and brilliancy remains somewhat diminished.

If you want high fire and high brilliancy, an amount of fire above the norm, then having the stone nano-engraved by the new company offering this service would make you a very happy diamond owner. Fire can be increased dramatically with no loss of brilliancy and no eye-visible changes to the diamond due to the nano-engraving on the pavilion.

Tiffany & Co seems to have decided upon a diamond with icy whiteness and not strong on fire. I believe their store lighting and their diamond cutting diminish fire and stress brilliancy... Maybe one of the vendors here with really super performing diamonds in their top branded cut might wish to comment on the degree of fire in their diamonds and what their preference is in this regard. I tend to believe it is a secondary concern for those cutting super-fine diamonds as fire just naturally is a part of a well cut diamond.

This makes perfect sense to me and would most definitely find me in this camp.

 

[marymm]

I prize brilliancy over than fire - and I do believe this preference will put me in the minority among PSers.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I absolutely agree that brilliance is a factor in ALL lighting, and fire is only viewable in some lighting. I would never give up brilliance for fire, but I do like a diamond that has both. (And I think my new diamond does!)

 

[msop04]

Brilliancy is highly important. Fire is a much more variable attribute that is inherently present in all normally faceted diamonds, but can change greatly depending on the lighting. If you go after making a diamond display more fire, you will lose brilliancy and the trade off is not likely to have appeal, especially in lighting where fire becomes less apparent and brilliancy remains somewhat diminished.

If you want high fire and high brilliancy, an amount of fire above the norm, then having the stone nano-engraved by the new company offering this service would make you a very happy diamond owner. Fire can be increased dramatically with no loss of brilliancy and no eye-visible changes to the diamond due to the nano-engraving on the pavilion.

Tiffany & Co seems to have decided upon a diamond with icy whiteness and not strong on fire. I believe their store lighting and their diamond cutting diminish fire and stress brilliancy... Maybe one of the vendors here with really super performing diamonds in their top branded cut might wish to comment on the degree of fire in their diamonds and what their preference is in this regard. I tend to believe it is a secondary concern for those cutting super-fine diamonds as fire just naturally is a part of a well cut diamond.

This makes perfect sense to me and would most definitely find me in this camp.

+2

 

[bunnycat]

I absolutely agree that brilliance is a factor in ALL lighting, and fire is only viewable in some lighting. I would never give up brilliance for fire, but I do like a diamond that has both.

Totally agree. I like both, but wouldn't want to give up brilliance for fire.

 

[JulieN]

what am i, #5 to sign on to Oldminer's post?

 

[kenny]

Redoing HCA & an App!
Many like old cuts, chunky cushions and retro cuts - maybe I should raise the fire weighting?

Does this mean the new HCA will also evaluate cuts other than round?

Although we'd have to enter 3 crown angles and 3 pavilion angles from something like a Sarin report, it sure would be groovy to have an HCA tool for Emerald and Asscher cuts.

I think cuts like Radiant and Cushion would be too complex mathematically with all those facets.

 

[Karl_K]

it sure would be groovy to have an HCA tool for Emerald and Asscher cuts.

That will never happen, you can have 2 step cut diamonds with the exact same angles and ones a total woofer and the other rocks.
With a round the design locks the facets into specific locations, how tightly depends on the cutting quality. But overall there is little room for variation other than lgf%/lgh%.
This is not the case with step cuts. The facets can be in many different locations.

 

[Karl_K]

A diamond without fire is boring, a diamond that doesn't have enough brightness is dim.
There has to be a balance to make a diamond that looks awesome in multiple lighting conditions.

 

[bright ice]

I prefer to have a diamond with tons of brilliance because that's what draws you in (who wants a dull diamond). I do love me some fire though so I really want a good balance of both if possible.

 

[delight]

Here's my equation for preference.

60% fire, 40% brilliance, 10% size. A good diamond should give me 110% worth of my money.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

it sure would be groovy to have an HCA tool for Emerald and Asscher cuts.

That will never happen, you can have 2 step cut diamonds with the exact same angles and ones a total woofer and the other rocks.
With a round the design locks the facets into specific locations, how tightly depends on the cutting quality. But overall there is little room for variation other than lgf%/lgh%.
This is not the case with step cuts. The facets can be in many different locations.

Sorry folks, Karl is right. Rounds and maybe square Princess are the only cuts that HCA can really extend to.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Here's my equation for preference.

60% fire, 40% brilliance, 10% size. A good diamond should give me 110% worth of my money.

Hi Delight, I think spread is more important than that. The fact that HCA has always factored spread is one of the reasons many 'experts' have criticized my 'opinion'.
But when people are choosing from 2 diamonds infront of them spread and relative size is often #1.

 

[Serg]

Hi Garry,
Do you compare Fire with Brightness or Fire with Brilliancy ?

In Post Topic you use Brightness , but in Vote system you use Brilliancy.
it is misleading.
there is a huge difference between Brilliancy and Brightness .
What do you prefer salt or sugar ?

 

[arkieb1]

So how do you rate scintillation??? Or am I confusing the terms you are using, because unless I am mistaken, many well cut old cuts have good fire and good brilliance compared to say a RB but they can leave a top cut RB for dead with big bold flashes of scintillation....

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

So how do you rate scintillation??? Or am I confusing the terms you are using, because unless I am mistaken, many well cut old cuts have good fire and good brilliance compared to say a RB but they can leave a top cut RB for dead with big bold flashes of scintillation....

That is a great question.
It is a very hard thing to do.
At this time I prefer to rate a negative - dark zones. Parts of the stone that make negative impact on a diamonds beauty over a range of movement. "measuring" scintillation is a complex task.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Garry,
Do you compare Fire with Brightness or Fire with Brilliancy ?

In Post Topic you use Brightness , but in Vote system you use Brilliancy.
it is misleading.
there is a huge difference between Brilliancy and Brightness .
What do you prefer salt or sugar ?

Since at this time there is no clear and valid definition of brilliance Sergey, I deliberately used both terms because I believe it would help people make a distinction that will help me choose a weighting for fire. The results so far are surprising me - I thought fire would not be as popular - but it is only a small sample.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Garry,

There is no way the HCA can give a Fire-rating, so, while I highly prefer FIre, I vote for simply taking that aspect out of the HCA.

Live long,

 

[backwardsandinheels]

I know there are infinite lighting situations, but I would like to see a video comparison example that you think shows both properties. Then I'll vote.

 

[diamond_concierge]

Lighting, then, is the single most important criterion. If you are hoping to create a standard, then the view lighting has to be consistent. North daylight? Compact flourescent? Flash and fire are going to vary depending on the conditions under which they are viewed. I think it comes down to a lifestyle choice. Are we talking about diamond aficionados who are spending their time in dimly lit restaurants or poolside?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I know there are infinite lighting situations, but I would like to see a video comparison example that you think shows both properties. Then I'll vote.

Let me think about that - I do not have the best videos to hand - but on you tube this one shows something of brigtness / and if it were slower you would see the dark zones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyoWM7KmLyo&feature=c4-overview&list=UUvPSJ3HBTHCGxyZc6EY3KtQ
This one shows fire very well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kDcjjelGwU&feature=c4-overview&list=UUvPSJ3HBTHCGxyZc6EY3KtQ

 

[greenpang]

Hi Garry,

What are you considering in redoing the HCA?

When I was choosing my diamond, I essentially created my own makeshift calculation, which included some elements of the HCA along with many other elements... Of course my personal calculation was biased, somewhat disorganized, and required mathematical knowledge beyond that of the average person.

If you are taking suggestions, I would recommend an optional "advanced" version that allows for inputting min/max values to account for variance as well as other factors such as girdle thickness and lower halves. (Also, I remember the current HCA's method of rounding the table percentage values to be somewhat frustrating.)

Btw, I'm with the others in giving a slight edge to fire.

 

[phale]

I bought a diamond with HCA under 1 and with a good idealscope image. It was bright and threw lots of fire under the sun. However, it seriously lacked scintillation, it did not sparkle in almost all lightings. At a jeweler's store, it faced up whiter than a G (GIA) but it looked very flat while the G sparkled. I returned it.

If I can refer to another thread, the op has the same problem: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/not-as-sparkle-as-what-the-number-reflects.190162/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/not-as-sparkle-as-what-the-number-reflects.190162/[/URL]

Someone told me something like this: I buy diamond for its fire and sparkle. If I want a white diamond, I'd buy a white sapphire.

I know your questions is between fire or brightness. Fire is more important to me. And maybe you can do something about scintillation too

 

[Dancing Fire]

I'll give up a little brilliance for some extra fire.

 

[Ashleigh]

60% fire, 40% brilliance

 

[Serg]

it has not any sense without real samples?
What is 60% Fire? may anybody explain that 100% fire is?

it is much better to compare real diamonds(movies) with different Fire and Brilliancy combinations and ask that consumer prefer.
If there are not reasonable definitions even for Brilliancy then statements like 40%/60% , have not any sense except idea that consumers prefer to see Brilliancy and Fire in same diamond.