Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what to do

[pyramid]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

The crown angle is steeper on the H color. Maybe you could speak with James Allen gemologist about what you are seeing as it is their photos.

 

[pyramid]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

I think what you are meaning MAYBE is contrast of arrows. Cannot see Hearts from top view of a diamond.

 

[pyramid]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

KarlK is this what gemologists mean when they speak of the crystal - the personality. Is this something to do with a diamonds personal grain growth or transparency. Also like the chemical make up percentages. Such as Type11 diamonds like Golconda are different. Is there divisions of chemical make up WITHIN each Type in the same way we have minute differences and scales within one color grade?

 

[cinnamonstick]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

Pyramid, Any guess at this point is worth hearing to help TY for your time!

 

[pyramid]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

Yes you need more replies but from professionals but as the diamonds are noted with vendor names they can't reply to you here due to forum rules. I am just a learner and amateur customer too. I think the cut has to do with arrow contrast but not sure but James Allen could help as they sold both diamonds but don't think they can comment about their own stones on here either. Contact them offline also ask about tables size being different as Diamondseeker said. They will be able to tell from their online info on each diamond. Be interesting to see what they say.

 

[solgen]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

I notice both diamonds have lower girdle pavilion of 80% so the wider arrows must just be because of the bigger diamond.

Smaller table makes the arrows appear fatter as well.

I could come down to the SI2 clarity and all the additional inclusions not shown. They could reduce transparency so the contrast doesn't appear as sharp.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

KarlK is this what gemologists mean when they speak of the crystal - the personality. Is this something to do with a diamonds personal grain growth or transparency. Also like the chemical make up percentages. Such as Type11 diamonds like Golconda are different. Is there divisions of chemical make up WITHIN each Type in the same way we have minute differences and scales within one color grade?

No it is different.
Different proportion sets have different looks or as I prefer different personalities to separate it from a quality differences.
2 diamonds both top of the line but different proportion sets will look different across a wide range of lighting.
This is also what can cause someone viewing both diamonds to say I like this one better where someone else would choose the other.
It is also why there will never be "the one" perfectly perfect proportion set.
If there were it would be easy, just cut all diamonds to those numbers.
There are brands that the creators of those brands do just that, they like the personality of one proportion set and cut all their diamonds to those numbers.

Differences in the crystal and inclusions can cause a difference in looks with in a proportion set but that was not what I was talking about.

 

[cinnamonstick]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

TY Solgen

Did you mean "it could come down" (not "I")?

If so, that is exactly what I am thinking. It's probably more of a clarity issue that is interfering w/ some of the sparkle. Guessing this is why it is graded and SI2, even though technically, it's a tripX.

Also maybe "personality" bc it still is a beauty

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

From that last picture you posted, I just don't think the H is an outstanding cut and when you combine that with the clarity, I just think I'd send it back! You mentioned focusing on GIA XXX, but do you know some are sooo much better than others? Only some of them would qualify as AGS Ideal cut and even fewer would qualify as top hearts and arrows precision cut. Maybe you should try order a hearts and arrows cut stone to see how you like that since you seem to be sensitive to cut quality? My diamond studs from Whiteflash (ACAs) are gorgeous and would be a good choice to look at!

 

[cinnamonstick]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

KarlK, what you replied made sense to me

 

[cinnamonstick]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

Diamondseeker2006,
I followed what you shared as well and read the same ideas here on PS I do not think I can jump to a true HA with out dropping below a 2ct. I am ct sensitive also I knew that from day one! Lol! The J was wonderful and not true HA. Could be just a better cut with in the GIA XXX (or at least maybe the wisps are doing something ). Actually, the J also had a long wisp. H just has several (vender said wisps were not as dense in the H, if I am recalling accurately, when I asked).

This is no means a dud of a diamond (nor close). It is just not clicking with the personality as the J did. I need the two combined!! Then HEAVEN

I will look at some prices of AGS Ideals I'm going to price myself out of a diamond.

 

[yssie]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

I think that what you're seeing is probably a combination of things, as others have already indicated in this thread.

To suggest that clarity characteristics have no effect on light return is inane, and it's disappointing that your appraiser treated your question with disdain As Bryan said - of course they do!! Neither GIA nor AGSL consider inclusions or stone body colour when assigning cut grade - GIA's cut grade is strictly proportions-based, and AGS's DQD Light Performance evaluation is a simulation (PGS) again based strictly on faceting. When evaluating clarity graders have five considerations, listed in no particular order:
-nature (type)
-size
-relief
-location
-number
More discussion on clarity grading: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/clarity-grading-question.154174/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/clarity-grading-question.154174/[/URL]

When plotting inclusion diagrams on the report the most 'severe' inclusion (grade-making) is listed first. Inclusions closer to the top of the stone are drawn in the top view and inclusions closer to the bottom of the stone are drawn in the bottom view, and to read the two plot diagrams imagine that the paper is folded between the top and bottom views, so 9 o'clock on the top view and 3 o'clock on the bottom view both represent the same side of the stone. The H SI2's inclusions are primarily on one half of the stone (both top and bottom views) - it's impossible to see in JA's video but I'll bet good money that the wisps in the the top view of the H SI2 extend further down into the stone, closer to the middle, than the wisps in the J SI1... inclusions like wisps and clouds nearer the middle/bottom of the stone (closer to the culet) can have more deleterious effects on light return than if they're closer to the table because more light paths will pass through them, so their effects are multiplied.

Interesting aside - I was talking to Wink of High Performance Diamonds about this some time ago, and he explained that a few years ago when Crafted by Infinity was cutting more lower-clarity stones faceting such that inclusions had minimal practical, visible effects on light return (something none of the big labs consider) was always a priority

And... well... diamonds definitely do come in different flavours, and you might be discovering that you have stronger preferences than you thought I personally have a strong personal preference for very-small-table very-steep-crown MRBs and to me larger-tabled lower-crowned stones just don't look as "lively", but of course that's not the case and others might well say exactly the opposite! In this case, ignoring any clarity implications, both stones are promising by the pictures, and you did note that you thought both were sparkly - just that to your eyes one is sparklier than the other

Would it be possible to go down to see some more stones in-person, or have the J sent out again (or sent to a local appraiser)? You mention possibly doing both of those... I definitely think you'd get a LOT out of it! These sorts of nuances really have to be seen to be pegged and filed, IMO

 

[yssie]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

I know GIA Ex cut grade allow for some degree of variations.
If this the case, can this possibly explain the less sparkle?
Yes, definitely - more info here: http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/06_estimating_a_cut_grade.html
The rounding used by the system is as follows:

Total depth is rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.1%
Table size is rounded to the nearest multiple of 1%
Crown angle is rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.5°
Pavilion angle is rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.2°
Pavilion angles ending in odd numbers are always rounded UP, for example 40.7° would be rounded to 40.8°
Star length is rounded to the nearest multiple of 5%
Lower-half (lower-girdle facet) length is rounded to the nearest multiple of 5%

But the ASET/IS images don't seem reflect this - is it because they measure the light performance - as in, total light return versus personality (i.e. how light is refracted/reflected)?
And yes again - this has come up a couple of times in other discussions, and our experts (including Garry) generally agree that neither IS nor ASET are sensitive enough to highlight nuances in light return caused by inclusions like clouds or dispersed wide-spread wisps...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

Yssie, you know, I agree that it takes seeing diamonds to learn your preferences. I, too, like smaller tables and nice crowns! I have tried a 58 table and much smaller, but I now know that I prefer 54-56 over 57+ for tables on mrbs.

cinnamonstick...ha, I love the term carat-sensitive! We do all have to balance our priorities! Fortunately for me, I am a little carat sensitive in the opposite direction and feel most comfortable with stones that are a little more modest (but I'd like to have multiple diamond rings, lol!)!!! But I hear you! That 2 ct mark brings you into a higher price point and you do have to balance out the specs to fit the budget!

I did neglect to say that sometimes the sales people on the phone have a lot less knowledge than some regular members here, and your experience kind of illustrates that. I am not sure it is very beneficial to even ask them questions because you cannot always trust what they say. The vendors who specialize in well cut stones seem to have more knowledgeable customer service people, in my experience anyway.

 

[yssie]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

I notice both diamonds have lower girdle pavilion of 80% so the wider arrows must just be because of the bigger diamond.

Pavilion (pavilion mains) is listed as 40.8 for both stones; lower halves (lower girdle facet length) is listed at 80% for both stones.
GIA averages around eight partitions of stone and then rounds to 5%, so 80% could mean an average of 78%-82%, which can certainly look quite different (shorter lower halves = wider mains = thicker arrowshafts). A larger stone will have larger facets than a smaller stone, but two stones of different sizes, both with 80% LGF (un-rounded, averaged with minimal deviation), will show mains of proportional width - scale them so they're the same diameter and they'll have arrows of the same thickness. Longer lower halves can save material as they require cutting away less of the pavilion main facets...

Both GIA and AGSL list lower half length (percentage of linear distance from girdle to culet) on the reports; DiamCalc (and apparently internal AGSL docs) list lower half height (distance lower halves extend from plane of girdle to parallel plane of culet).

Smaller table makes the arrows appear fatter as well.

Mains and lower halves are closely related and that relationship is independent of table/crown facets (kite, star, upper girdle), but I agree (and prefer!) that smaller table reflection (function of shallower pavilion and smaller table) showcases the arrows

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

I should add that probably no phone rep knows as much about cut as Yssie and Karl (not counting jewelers such as Jonathan, Bryan B, Wink, John, etc.).

 

[cinnamonstick]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

Wow! Talk about an education Yssie! That was detailed! I appreciate it and need to read it over a few times to fully digest. SUCH a interesting and informative reply!
When studying up on wisps, I believe I read the QA discussion u posted. This is what alerted me that wisps *could* be a problem, but not always.


The J has been returned and doubt the vendor has it in hand still to reevaluate its "personality". I suspect he may remember.
I looked in to train tickets to NYC this morning. Aprox $320 for tickets (+ $ 12 hour babysitter for 2). *sigh*.

I feel trying one more time is worth it through mail (unless the vendor divorces me for making another return). I am paying to ship the diamonds back, but he is paying 2x more to overnight them to me! This can't go on forever...it is worth my $50 to ship back a return, not sure how he feels on his end. Profits.

Seems like moving back up SI1, stay H, relatively close HA (minus $$ premium), or AGS0 (reading up now on AGS), trying to locate J personality, and asking the vendor try to work his magic one more time. I am not sure I can juggle "owning" two diamonds at the same time, even though one would be eventualy returned. I really wanted to see the H beside another diamond I would consider buying. Not sure how to work that out other than a trip to NYC. So frustrating

.

 

[cinnamonstick]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

A couple more posts popped up while I was typing and sending mine. I will read through them now

 

[D_]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

I was actually referring to the variation in cut in terms of symmetry (also because GIA rounds off numbers like Yssie has explained).
I just thought there were variations in crown angle or table & girdle not parallel, but maybe it was the way pictures were taken.
I thought that if there were such variations, then light will be reflected differently (e.g. some at 45 degree, 49 etc. instead of all 45 degree) so our eyes capture the sparkle differently. ASET and IS images look good, but I was wondering if it's possible for ASET & IS images to look good yet the diamond has less "sparkle" because ASET and IS show whether intense, less intense light return and light loss, but may not show how light is reflected within a narrower range (i.e. personality). Hence, maybe the H is a beautiful stone, just reflecting light slightly differently and some people may deem it as having less sparkle. Give the same J & H to some other people and they may like the H better, like Karl may have mentioned above (though I understand that's a moot point here since it's what the OP likes would matter).

Upon looking at the symmetry classification again, looks like that is not the case here.
http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/polish_and_symmetry.pdf

GIA Ex Symmetry/Cut (no symmetry features to minute symmetry features that can be viewed with difficulty face-up at 10X magnification) allows for "symmetry features such as misaligned, misshapen, non-pointed, or extra facets that are barely visible."

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

Sound like you love how the J sparkles ...if you can live the J color then go for it!

 

[WinkHPD]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

I think that what you're seeing is probably a combination of things, as others have already indicated in this thread.

To suggest that clarity characteristics have no effect on light return is inane, and it's disappointing that your appraiser treated your question with disdain As Bryan said - of course they do!! Neither GIA nor AGSL consider inclusions or stone body colour when assigning cut grade - GIA's cut grade is strictly proportions-based, and AGS's DQD Light Performance evaluation is a simulation (PGS) again based strictly on faceting. When evaluating clarity graders have five considerations, listed in no particular order:
-nature (type)
-size
-relief
-location
-number
More discussion on clarity grading: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/clarity-grading-question.154174/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/clarity-grading-question.154174/[/URL]

When plotting inclusion diagrams on the report the most 'severe' inclusion (grade-making) is listed first. Inclusions closer to the top of the stone are drawn in the top view and inclusions closer to the bottom of the stone are drawn in the bottom view, and to read the two plot diagrams imagine that the paper is folded between the top and bottom views, so 9 o'clock on the top view and 3 o'clock on the bottom view both represent the same side of the stone. The H SI2's inclusions are primarily on one half of the stone (both top and bottom views) - it's impossible to see in JA's video but I'll bet good money that the wisps in the the top view of the H SI2 extend further down into the stone, closer to the middle, than the wisps in the J SI1... inclusions like wisps and clouds nearer the middle/bottom of the stone (closer to the culet) can have more deleterious effects on light return than if they're closer to the table because more light paths will pass through them, so their effects are multiplied.

And... well... diamonds definitely do come in different flavours, and you might be discovering that you have stronger preferences than you thought I personally have a strong personal preference for very-small-table very-steep-crown MRBs and to me larger-tabled lower-crowned stones just don't look as "lively", but of course that's not the case and others might well say exactly the opposite! In this case, ignoring any clarity implications, both stones are promising by the pictures, and you did note that you thought both were sparkly - just that to your eyes one is sparklier than the other

Would it be possible to go down to see some more stones in-person, or have the J sent out again (or sent to a local appraiser)? You mention possibly doing both of those... I definitely think you'd get a LOT out of it! These sorts of nuances really have to be seen to be pegged and filed, IMO

When I went to GIA in 1975 I was taught that unless the inclusion touched the pavilion surface that it was plotted from the top. It is entirely possible that this has changed, along with so much of what I learned way back then, but I have concentrated my continuing studies on cut and its effects on beauty more than on clarity so I will not say for certain that this is still true.

I will follow Karl's example and not speak directly to these two diamonds, but generally, having the shorter pavilion lower halves, especially when coupled with proper pavilion and crown angles as well as optical symmetry, will result in larger thicker arrows which will result in larger flashes of both white and colored light. If you like dispersion, you will normally see more of it in a properly cut diamond with 76% lower halves than you will in one with 80% lower halves. This is because for dispersion (fire) to be visible as colored light, it must be wider at the point where it enters the pupil of the eye than the pupil. If not, all of the light, dispersed or not, will enter the eye and when all of the colors of the rainbow present themselves to the retina of the eye, they are perceived of as white light. It is only when some of the color(s) are clipped that we see the wonderful flashes of reds, blues, yellows and greens that many of us have come to love so much. Thus the larger and more cohesive the facets and virtual facets are, the more likely that we will see dispersion.

In this case, where both diamonds are at 80% lower halves, it becomes an issue of optical precision between two diamonds. One might produce wider arrows than the other as one is a larger virtual facet while another may be two or three virtual facets in the same area, each producing smaller flashes of white and colored light.

While I agree that it is true that inclusions that are not visible to the naked eye can and do affect light return, I would argue that it is more likely that the difference in cutting is making the difference that you are seeing rather than the inclusions. It could well be a combination, but my vote is that it is more likely the cutting.

This does not change the fact that you are color sensitive and this post should not be considered an attempt to tell you not to honor that sensitivity, it is just an attempt to share with you what may be the reason that one looks better to your eye than the other, even though you do not like the color of the one that you like better for the sparkle.

I wish you well in your search.

Wink

P.S. Yssie commented several times while I was writing this and I remember our discussion that she mentions well. She and I have different tastes in what we prefer and I love her attitude that I am allowed to have my opinion, so long as I respect her right to hers. It is an attitude that so many PriceScopers share, and many of them are in this thread to offer assistance to our OP. It is one of the things that I love about PricesScope.

P.P.S. Yssie's penchant for steep crown angles with very small tables normally leads to LOTS of dispersion, which I love.

 

[WinkHPD]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

I was actually referring to the variation in cut in terms of symmetry (also because GIA rounds off numbers like Yssie has explained).
I just thought there were variations in crown angle or table & girdle not parallel, but maybe it was the way pictures were taken.
I thought that if there were such variations, then light will be reflected differently (e.g. some at 45 degree, 49 etc. instead of all 45 degree) so our eyes capture the sparkle differently. ASET and IS images look good, but I was wondering if it's possible for ASET & IS images to look good yet the diamond has less "sparkle" because ASET and IS show whether intense, less intense light return and light loss, but may not show how light is reflected within a narrower range (i.e. personality). Hence, maybe the H is a beautiful stone, just reflecting light slightly differently and some people may deem it as having less sparkle. Give the same J & H to some other people and they may like the H better, like Karl may have mentioned above (though I understand that's a moot point here since it's what the OP likes would matter).

Upon looking at the symmetry classification again, looks like that is not the case here.
http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/polish_and_symmetry.pdf

GIA Ex Symmetry/Cut (no symmetry features to minute symmetry features that can be viewed with difficulty face-up at 10X magnification) allows for "symmetry features such as misaligned, misshapen, non-pointed, or extra facets that are barely visible."

The symmetry mentioned on both GIA and AGS reports is physical symmetry, not the optical symmetry that it takes to really make the diamond sing and dance for you.

Wink

 

[pyramid]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

Iwas talking about a gemologist to see re the wisps or cutting not the phone reps. I remember saying about a feather being a crack and Vera at Whiteflash said she had never heard of a feather being called a crack despite us mentioning it here for years.

Thanks KarlK I understand what you mean by personality, I was off in the wrong track as I have heard jewellers speaking of fine crystal what does that mean?

Yssie great posts about cconsidering bottom with top together for inclusions and showing us also the GIA rounding percentages.

 

[cinnamonstick]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

Dancing Fire (love the name)- Can't do a J. Not even for that perfect J (really was!).

Wink- Thank you for your expertise and comments. Optical Semmetry (for my eyes) . Sounds accurate. The J had fire with many colors (green, blue, red...rainbow) fm what I recall. I was wondering if the multiple colors were do more to the warmth of the stone. I suppose not, rather cut. The H has some color and a lot of white flashing light (to me). Dispersion. Your knowledge is more technical for my understanding but I believe I am getting the gist of it. Possibly cutting more than clairty. Its nice to hear a variety of important without and having posters argue. Agree this is what makes PS wonderful. Simple respectd

D, agree. Some may prefer the H and some J. I always felt jewelry was "personal" (taste) and diamonds are the same way! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Neither is wrong. Simply personal preference.

 

[WinkHPD]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

I should add that probably no phone rep knows as much about cut as Yssie and Karl (not counting jewelers such as Jonathan, Bryan B, Wink, John, etc.).

I would add only the comment that so many here, like DiamondSeeker, Yssie, Pyramid, Dancing Fire and many others know more than most phone reps. Phone reps have a job, PriceScopers have a passion.

Wink

 

[pyramid]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

D, symmetry refers to facet symmetry as you show with the link. You are talking about small optical symmetry differences though so maybe the can have an effect too as you say...KarlK, Wink etc may know?

Edit read further and see Wink has already answered you D.

 

[solgen]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

TY Solgen

Did you mean "it could come down" (not "I")?

If so, that is exactly what I am thinking. It's probably more of a clarity issue that is interfering w/ some of the sparkle. Guessing this is why it is graded and SI2, even though technically, it's a tripX.

Also maybe "personality" bc it still is a beauty

Yes, I meant it.

I will follow Karl's example and not speak directly to these two diamonds, but generally, having the shorter pavilion lower halves, especially when coupled with proper pavilion and crown angles as well as optical symmetry, will result in larger thicker arrows which will result in larger flashes of both white and colored light. If you like dispersion, you will normally see more of it in a properly cut diamond with 76% lower halves than you will in one with 80% lower halves. This is because for dispersion (fire) to be visible as colored light, it must be wider at the point where it enters the pupil of the eye than the pupil. If not, all of the light, dispersed or not, will enter the eye and when all of the colors of the rainbow present themselves to the retina of the eye, they are perceived of as white light. It is only when some of the color(s) are clipped that we see the wonderful flashes of reds, blues, yellows and greens that many of us have come to love so much. Thus the larger and more cohesive the facets and virtual facets are, the more likely that we will see dispersion.

In this case, where both diamonds are at 80% lower halves, it becomes an issue of optical precision between two diamonds. One might produce wider arrows than the other as one is a larger virtual facet while another may be two or three virtual facets in the same area, each producing smaller flashes of white and colored light.
...
Wink

P.S. Yssie commented several times while I was writing this and I remember our discussion that she mentions well. She and I have different tastes in what we prefer and I love her attitude that I am allowed to have my opinion, so long as I respect her right to hers. It is an attitude that so many PriceScopers share, and many of them are in this thread to offer assistance to our OP. It is one of the things that I love about PricesScope.

P.P.S. Yssie's penchant for steep crown angles with very small tables normally leads to LOTS of dispersion, which I love.

GIA rounds lower halves so the J could actually be 77% while the H is 80% thus perhaps explaining (some) the difference?

While both diamonds have similar low halves, 40.8 pav and 80% lower the crowns are pretty different at 34 crown, 56 table and 50% star vs 35 crown, 58 table and 45% star. That could account for the minute visual difference as well.


I've found it helpful when others list their preferred portions as they tend to describe what qualities it gives the diamond. I tend to favor the smaller table of around 55% and crown angle of 34.5-35 with pav of 40.6-40.8 and 75% lower as it creates a nice mix of features IMO.

 

[yssie]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

When I went to GIA in 1975 I was taught that unless the inclusion touched the pavilion surface that it was plotted from the top. It is entirely possible that this has changed, along with so much of what I learned way back then, but I have concentrated my continuing studies on cut and its effects on beauty more than on clarity so I will not say for certain that this is still true.

Wink - thank you for bringing this up!

I'm looking through the notes I usually keep of reference material and can't for the life of me figure out where I got this particular nugget, and - frustratingly!! - I can't find *any* public documentation from GIA or AGSL that addresses this specific question! I'm much inclined to take your word on it I contacted GIA to ask as well, and I'll be interested to find out if the plotting methodology remains as it was when you were there.

 

[WinkHPD]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

Dancing Fire (love the name)- Can't do a J. Not even for that perfect J (really was!).

Wink- Thank you for your expertise and comments. Optical Semmetry (for my eyes) . Sounds accurate. The J had fire with many colors (green, blue, red...rainbow) fm what I recall. I was wondering if the multiple colors were do more to the warmth of the stone. I suppose not, rather cut. The H has some color and a lot of white flashing light (to me). Dispersion. Your knowledge is more technical for my understanding but I believe I am getting the gist of it. Possibly cutting more than clairty. Its nice to hear a variety of important without and having posters argue. Agree this is what makes PS wonderful. Simple respectd

D, agree. Some may prefer the H and some J. I always felt jewelry was "personal" (taste) and diamonds are the same way! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Neither is wrong. Simply personal preference.

There may be a small component of the colors standing out more in the J color but the dispersion must be there in the first place in order to stand out. I once did a video of a 6.03 ct N-VVS2 that showed incredible dispersion because of its cut and the contrast between the N color and the dispersion was absolutely magical.

It absolutely blows my mind that a GIA Excellent cut grade can spread wide enough to enclose the first four cut grades of AGS in nearly all diamonds, with certain AGS 5 cut grade diamonds sneaking into the GIA Excellent grade. As tight as the AGS Ideal cut grade is, there are even different flavors within that cut grade.

If you go down two or three color or clarity grades the effect on pricing is tremendous.

For example: 1 ct D-VS1 drops in price 28.92% if you drop down to a G-VS1. This is a three step drop that in a well cut diamond is not visible to the average eye when viewed from the top, and even if visible is only a very small difference from the top.

If we were to keep the color grade a D and lower the clarity only two grades to a D-SI1 the price drops an incredible 32.23% for something that to all but the sharpest eyed youngster is not at all visible without a loupe.

Now, get this. Take this D-VS1 to a G-SI1, have the exact same view and beauty from the top of the diamond to most eyes, and the price declines 41.32% (on today's market and assuming same quality and appearance of cutting.)

Yet when you look at the price sheets, they make NO MENTION of cutting having an effect on the pricing. Now, in reality, the diamonds are offered at wildly different pricing depending on how they are cut, yet the average person buying a diamond does not know this, nor does the trade really want to take the time to discuss this with you.

When you go to a jewelry store, what do you hear about? Color and clarity. HUGE difference in pricing for tiny differences in color and clarity, often not even discernible to the human eye. For sure, the human eye can not discern between an Internally flawless and a VS2 in over 99% of cases. Usually not even between an IF and an SI1 and often an SI2 and sometimes even a well cut I1. (From the top, all comments here are from the top.)

So why does cutting, which has tremendous influence on appearance and flavor receive little attention other than in weird places like Pricescope, where we actually care? I honestly do not know, but I suspect it is partially because the cutters make more money on selling you a steep deep that keeps a magic price range, such as 1.00 or 1.50 rather than being the smaller size it would be if cut for maximum beauty, and it is NOT in their best interests to educate you to know the difference.

Accck! I must stop now, I am going crazy just thinking about it. And on a Sunday no less. I think I will go home now and take my lovely wife for a Sunday drive. We have been working on fixing up our duck club property all summer and it is well worth the drive to show her how well it has come out.

Thank you all for this stimulating conversation, see you soon.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Re: Why is this diamond not sparkling as much? Unsure what t

When I went to GIA in 1975 I was taught that unless the inclusion touched the pavilion surface that it was plotted from the top. It is entirely possible that this has changed, along with so much of what I learned way back then, but I have concentrated my continuing studies on cut and its effects on beauty more than on clarity so I will not say for certain that this is still true.

Wink - thank you for bringing this up!

I'm looking through the notes I usually keep of reference material and can't for the life of me figure out where I got this particular nugget, and - frustratingly!! - I can't find *any* public documentation from GIA or AGSL that addresses this specific question! I'm much inclined to take your word on it I contacted GIA to ask as well, and I'll be interested to find out if the plotting methodology remains as it was when you were there.

You are quite welcome, and I too will be interested in knowing what you find. Now, I have to run before someone else says something I feel like I should respond to. There is this sort of addictive quality to Pricescope...