Need help selecting H&A 1.29 or larger- pre loved ok too

[pfunk]

The difference in price between a VS1 and a VS2 - particularly in a 2 ct. stone - is significant. The difference in diameter between the CBI stone and your stone is quite telling. Your stone may be deeper or have more weight in the girdle. I don't know as I've never seen the specs of the stone you are purchasing. The fact that you may or may not notice the size difference is not the only litmus test for the difference in the two stones.

CBI does not cut thousands of stone per year. If you will go to their website and read about their cutting process - from procurement of a stone or rough to a finished product, you will see the expertise, time and planning that they put into a finished stone. While this level of precision may not be for all - and price being included in that choice - it is for some. Your efforts to quantify the difference between an ideal cut and a super ideal cut will always fall flat - beauty is in the eye of the beholder and purchaser. When people come here looking for the biggest, most sparkly diamond that they can find for their money, they will usually always be advised to go for the smaller, well cut stone. Finding a stone with color/clarity and size that they want is just the beginning and so often what they've found is a less than well cut stone. When other choices are presented, it is always up to the consumer to decide what is right for them. It's just that PS is a place to come for some education about diamonds and choices and they will usually be directed to stones and vendors that are a known source of very well cut stones. The 'most sparkly' stone won't be found among the mediocre.

I am happy for you that you have found a stone that you really like and that hits all of your important high spots. That makes for a very satisfied consumer and that's important. Asking questions of the experts in order to gain information and education is commendable. Asking questions in an effort to debunk what they know firsthand from many years of experience is questionable.

Indeed the stone is hiding some weight in a slightly thick girdle. Obviously to make sure the all important 2 carat mark was hit. I did not intend to bring ongoing discussion about my stone into the thread, but thought it an interesting thing to add considering what smitcompton had mentioned about the premium of a superideal, and to hopefully illustrate to Paul why wanting to know more information is important when the price premium for a CBI is that large.

I am not trying to quantify the difference between an ideal and a superideal stone. I'm asking if anyone else has quantified it. I'm curious if there is published literature or laboratory measurements showing that superideal stones outperform ideal cuts in visual aspects such as scintillation, fire, brilliance, etc.

Regarding your last statement. I am asking these questions to learn for myself and also to help other consumers wondering the same things. I am not trying to debunk what anyone knows firsthand from years of experience. Obviously someone who has years of experience and who specializes in precision cut diamonds also has experience with high tech devices used to cut and assess those diamonds. They also likely have very good relationships with the laboratories doing the grading. This is the reason for my questions about the tools which are used to show that a perfect h&a diamond outperforms one with slight imperfections. If no such tools/data/measurements exist, fine. If they and their customers are seeing the differences but don't yet have a way to actually measure and quantify them, fine. I'm simply asking the question, admittedly over and over again now, because I haven't yet seen it answered.

 

[MissGotRocks]

I honestly don't think there is an answer to your question. There is certainly equipment that measures diamonds and their performance that can be seen with the human eye that does not translate to written words to include on a cert. I think if you were able to see super ideal stones in person, you too would see the difference that is being referred to. However, that is not to say that you would find the additional premium worth the money. When I first came to PS, seeing the images of hearts and arrows stones was really not appealing to me. I assumed that you would 'see' these arrows when you looked at the stone and frankly found it to be a turn off. After I had a chance to see them in person, I understood their relevance and their beauty.

SmitCompton makes a good point regarding younger consumers and limited dollars as do you. For some people, buying a diamond is a once in a lifetime experience and getting a good size, white stone is all that they want or care about. I think it is the real diamond lovers that are hooked by the notion of cutting stones to the level of precision that is available today. There are many here that are lovers of the older cuts that were the predecessors of today's more ideal cut stones. We are all different and that's what makes the world go round. If we all loved the same thing, the world would be a very boring place!

On some level, I really do appreciate your arguments and questions. On another level, I think you are light on having the experience of seeing these stones firsthand. Only at that point could you truly answer the question about quantifying the look and more importantly - if that look is worth your hard earned dollars. My first diamond was abysmal but it took me ten years to know that. The internet certainly opened up learning to a level beyond what some hack jeweler in a store could or would tell you about diamonds. Unfortunately, this is not a business that only had upstanding and honest representatives promoting it. I feel that the internet has provided a level of transparency in the field that makes for much more educated buyers. I wish it had been available to me back in the day.

I hope you come back and share your finished ring with us. If you are happy with it, believe me when I tell you that we will be delighted for you! At the end of the day on PS, there is nothing better than a happy diamond consumer - regardless of which way you choose to go!

 

[BrownyJones]

Hi Missgotrocks, you're eventual appreciation of well cut stones is precisely why this topic is interesting to me and maybe also pfunk. I would like to understand and be educated on why something is more beautiful and appreciated will cost me 10k more to enjoy. Hey it might be worth the 10k, and if it is, great. If its like appreciating art, then tell me its like art. If its like fine wine, then fine, i'll go with that. But dont tell a scientist that this is based on science. A scope thay allows you to see some various shades of red without any sort of reference point. Remember when your high school science teacher said a number without units is meaningless? Well, this is worse, theres not even a number, its words like more red or less red, or some green.

I actually did call up whiteflash and ask them to see ACA stones and to compare them with generic GIAXXX stones, they said they didnt have any non superideals to do the comparison. But I did get to spend some time brian gavin and see his stones, he's great btw, and my fiance and I could not tell the difference between the superideals and regular excellent ones. Of course, it probably is just my u trained eyes. But please dont tell me there is science behind it. Or compare it to sports cars or athletes because thats just absurd.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Hi Missgotrocks, you're eventual appreciation of well cut stones is precisely why this topic is interesting to me and maybe also pfunk. I would like to understand and be educated on why something is more beautiful and appreciated will cost me 10k more to enjoy. Hey it might be worth the 10k, and if it is, great. If its like appreciating art, then tell me its like art. If its like fine wine, then fine, i'll go with that. But dont tell a scientist that this is based on science. A scope thay allows you to see some various shades of red without any sort of reference point. Remember when your high school science teacher said a number without units is meaningless? Well, this is worse, theres not even a number, its words like more red or less red, or some green.

I actually did call up whiteflash and ask them to see ACA stones and to compare them with generic GIAXXX stones, they said they didnt have any non superideals to do the comparison. But I did get to spend some time brian gavin and see his stones, he's great btw, and my fiance and I could not tell the difference between the superideals and regular excellent ones. Of course, it probably is just my u trained eyes. But please dont tell me there is science behind it. Or compare it to sports cars or athletes because thats just absurd.

That is not only true of diamonds - it applies to lots of things. If you like it and appreciate it for what it is, then you have no choice but to pay the premium. Pieces of art are appreciated and intriguing to some - not so to others. It is simply a matter of personal preference and choice. Wine is the same way IMO - a perfectly aged and expensive wine may appeal to you and not to me. Would it then be worth the price to me? Certainly not.

There is certainly mathematics and geometry involved in cutting stones. Tweaking of diamond cutting by lasers and computer aid has reached a level unheard of even ten years ago. If you look at many of the older oec cut stones, you will see diamonds that are out of round without a perfect level of symmetry. That very thing is what draws some people to their beauty. Others prefer the more precise cutting abilities of today.

As for Brian Gavin, he is one of the best. There is nothing about diamond cutting that I could explain to you that he could not explain more in depth and in better detail. If you met with him, I trust you posed your questions to him. His ideal cut stones are among some of the best of the best and his knowledge of the cutting process would be unequaled by many.

 

[pfunk]

I honestly don't think there is an answer to your question. There is certainly equipment that measures diamonds and their performance that can be seen with the human eye that does not translate to written words to include on a cert. I think if you were able to see super ideal stones in person, you too would see the difference that is being referred to. However, that is not to say that you would find the additional premium worth the money. When I first came to PS, seeing the images of hearts and arrows stones was really not appealing to me. I assumed that you would 'see' these arrows when you looked at the stone and frankly found it to be a turn off. After I had a chance to see them in person, I understood their relevance and their beauty.

SmitCompton makes a good point regarding younger consumers and limited dollars as do you. For some people, buying a diamond is a once in a lifetime experience and getting a good size, white stone is all that they want or care about. I think it is the real diamond lovers that are hooked by the notion of cutting stones to the level of precision that is available today. There are many here that are lovers of the older cuts that were the predecessors of today's more ideal cut stones. We are all different and that's what makes the world go round. If we all loved the same thing, the world would be a very boring place!

On some level, I really do appreciate your arguments and questions. On another level, I think you are light on having the experience of seeing these stones firsthand. Only at that point could you truly answer the question about quantifying the look and more importantly - if that look is worth your hard earned dollars. My first diamond was abysmal but it took me ten years to know that. The internet certainly opened up learning to a level beyond what some hack jeweler in a store could or would tell you about diamonds. Unfortunately, this is not a business that only had upstanding and honest representatives promoting it. I feel that the internet has provided a level of transparency in the field that makes for much more educated buyers. I wish it had been available to me back in the day.

I hope you come back and share your finished ring with us. If you are happy with it, believe me when I tell you that we will be delighted for you! At the end of the day on PS, there is nothing better than a happy diamond consumer - regardless of which way you choose to go!

I think there is an answer to the questions but after reading CBI's website I don't know that Paul will be able to explain it to us, though I hope that he can. There are a few statements made on the website that I found interesting.

1. "The AGSL uses computer modeling to score brightness, contrast and leakage. But most significantly, no major laboratory cut assessment currently includes a meaningful judgment of scintillation, which many people consider to be the most important and attractive component of diamond performance."

-Does this mean there is no way to measure scintillation, or simply that AGSL doesn't measure it? Does CBI have their own way to measure scintillation, and in doing so, have you found that your diamonds score higher?

2. "Factually no laboratory has yet subdivided cut-quality components to anywhere near the level that color or clarity are subdivided. Doing this is already possible behind industry doors, but pressure from mass-manufacturers prevents public disclosure of greater cut detail for any given diamond."

Along with this:

"One needs to look no farther than the youngest and largest-growing market (China) to find laboratories disclosing more cut value-factors and consumers who are more cut-educated than their USA counterparts. Diamond shoppers in this new market are not only more aware of cut-quality subdivisions; they also recognize the added value commanded by diamonds with non-accidental, extremely high levels of three-dimensional cut-precision. Sightholders and cutting houses serving this market have improved systems to satisfy growing eastern demand for fine-make. Eventually these modern value-factors will become recognized in the older USA market, but mass-manufacturers and retailers are in no rush to assist that recognition, due to the extra work, training time and expense it will require"

Does this mean that Chinese labs are disclosing more information about cut quality? Information that would objectively prove superideal diamonds to be in a cut class of their own when compared to near superideals? If so, what kinds of information are they sharing? Is there a way for us to see the information that they are releasing that is helping consumers there recognize and appreciate the added value of a superideal?

Do these statements collectively mean that the laboratories here in the US have the technology available to prove the superiority of superideals in various metrics but are not yet doing so because of pressure from mass producers?

Finally, a personal question for Paul. I see that Continental Diamonds in St. Louis Park, MN is listed as a vendor of CBI diamonds. If you could please confirm whether this is the case. If so, I will make time to go look at CBI diamonds and do a side by side comparison, provided the store will allow it.

 

[mn_shopaholic]

Finally, a personal question for Paul. I see that Continental Diamonds in St. Louis Park, MN is listed as a vendor of CBI diamonds. If you could please confirm whether this is the case. If so, I will make time to go look at CBI diamonds and do a side by side comparison, provided the store will allow it.

I'm not Paul, but I can confirm that Continental Diamonds does carry CBI diamonds (of which I've purchased several).

If you want to view other diamonds beyond CBI that are marketed as H&A ideal cut, just down the street from Continental is Bergstrom Jewelers, a Hearts on Fire authorized retailer. On the St Paul side of the metro is RF Moeller, they carry Lazare Diamonds.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hi again,

I will tell of my experience last week when I found a cushion cut diamond I was interested in from a virtual inventory. 1.01 ctw, VSI, G color. I asked for an aset which they sent along with a picture of the actual diamond. The diamond had nice crisp facets(As thy say no mush) and the aset looked OK. The gemologist from oversees said it was a beautiful diamond. The GIA report showed a feather and so I hesitated ---cost 4,000.

I went to look on our PS vendors websites and was genuinely astonished at what the super ideal diamonds of that size cost. My most incredulous find was a 1.02 E vvsi from Brian Gavin came in over 16,000.00. I would have no trouble buying the beautiful non=ideal diamond, which I could return vs some super ideal diamond for an outrageous price. That is the truth that I was just thinking about all this.

Now, I would never recommend buying an i1 or even an si2 even if it was eye clean. But I am sure super ideal is not for me.

Hi Annette,

No problem with super-ideal being not for you. But your comparison needs to be put in perspective. A 4-fold price seems dramatic, but the comparison is crooked in two ways:
- First E-VVS1 as such already commands a double price compared to G-VS1, on the basis of the lab-grade only.
- Second, in the analysis of Cushions, with their being limited to no standards for the generic product, the comparison does not really look useful.

Live long,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hi again,

I will tell of my experience last week when I found a cushion cut diamond I was interested in from a virtual inventory. 1.01 ctw, VSI, G color. I asked for an aset which they sent along with a picture of the actual diamond. The diamond had nice crisp facets(As thy say no mush) and the aset looked OK. The gemologist from oversees said it was a beautiful diamond. The GIA report showed a feather and so I hesitated ---cost 4,000.

I went to look on our PS vendors websites and was genuinely astonished at what the super ideal diamonds of that size cost. My most incredulous find was a 1.02 E vvsi from Brian Gavin came in over 16,000.00. I would have no trouble buying the beautiful non=ideal diamond, which I could return vs some super ideal diamond for an outrageous price. That is the truth that I was just thinking about all this.

Now, I would never recommend buying an i1 or even an si2 even if it was eye clean. But I am sure super ideal is not for me.

Sometimes, though not always, the premium for a superideal is quite large. But in addition to the cut improvements they also often come with other perks that certainly carry some value.

Since Paul is here and it may be of interest, the CBI diamond that most closely matches what I purchased is found here, in Wink's inventory:

http://highperformancediamonds.com/shop/clarity/HPD7134/

This diamond has the advantage of being VS1, versus VS2, and also has a larger diameter of 8.19 vs 8.06 (2.02 vs 2.01 carats), a number that I doubt I would notice visually, though perhaps I would. The price is 59% higher than what I paid for my stone. That equates to just over $8,100 extra. That is a very large amount of additional money to invest, which is why I feel it necessary to ask these questions if I am going to invest that kind of money sight unseen.

Pfunk,

As you are bringing up such a specific case, I have the liberty to answer you clearly and to the point.

I trust not, but IF you are raising the idea that CBI is sold to the consumer with a 59%-premium, I need to expose this as blatant and dishonest misinformation, possibly with malicious intent.

So, here is our 2.02 J-VS1, for sale at HPD for a wire-transfer-cost of $21,827.-. CC-price is $22,975.-.
Now, if you say your stone is $8,100.- cheaper, to what price is this compared? Did your stone cost around $13,700.- or around $14,800.-?

Unfortunately, we do not know that it is a 2.01 J-VS2 (not VS1) with a diameter of 8.06mm. You acknowledge that it has been cut a bit deep in order to get to the 2Ct-mark and that the difference in diameter is not important to you. Fine, no problem, but if the comparison is raised to make the case that we are selling at a crazy premium, the fact that your stone does not have the diameter of a true 2Ct-stone is important, and the reality that you do not care is unimportant.

Fact is, in a correct comparison, your stone should be at best compared to a 1.95 Ct. J-VS2 (not VS1) CBI. Unfortunately, such comparison-stone does not exist, and given the difficulty of cutting such stone economically, it is unlikely to come out of production soon. Still, I can tell you what such theoretical CBI would cost. It would be around $16,800.-, quite a difference with the $22K-$23K you are intent to comparing with.

Sure, there still is a price-difference, but a lot less than what you are trying to portray. We obviously are still talking about a different product, even if size, color and clarity are now comparable.

Anyway, it is fully acceptable if you question our diamonds to be what you would like. But you bringing up a twisted comparison, claiming that there is a 59%-premium, is incorrect, unfair and not acceptable. Hence my reaction.

Live long,

 

[pfunk]

Hi again,

I will tell of my experience last week when I found a cushion cut diamond I was interested in from a virtual inventory. 1.01 ctw, VSI, G color. I asked for an aset which they sent along with a picture of the actual diamond. The diamond had nice crisp facets(As thy say no mush) and the aset looked OK. The gemologist from oversees said it was a beautiful diamond. The GIA report showed a feather and so I hesitated ---cost 4,000.

I went to look on our PS vendors websites and was genuinely astonished at what the super ideal diamonds of that size cost. My most incredulous find was a 1.02 E vvsi from Brian Gavin came in over 16,000.00. I would have no trouble buying the beautiful non=ideal diamond, which I could return vs some super ideal diamond for an outrageous price. That is the truth that I was just thinking about all this.

Now, I would never recommend buying an i1 or even an si2 even if it was eye clean. But I am sure super ideal is not for me.

Sometimes, though not always, the premium for a superideal is quite large. But in addition to the cut improvements they also often come with other perks that certainly carry some value.

Since Paul is here and it may be of interest, the CBI diamond that most closely matches what I purchased is found here, in Wink's inventory:

http://highperformancediamonds.com/shop/clarity/HPD7134/

This diamond has the advantage of being VS1, versus VS2, and also has a larger diameter of 8.19 vs 8.06 (2.02 vs 2.01 carats), a number that I doubt I would notice visually, though perhaps I would. The price is 59% higher than what I paid for my stone. That equates to just over $8,100 extra. That is a very large amount of additional money to invest, which is why I feel it necessary to ask these questions if I am going to invest that kind of money sight unseen.

Pfunk,

As you are bringing up such a specific case, I have the liberty to answer you clearly and to the point.

I trust not, but IF you are raising the idea that CBI is sold to the consumer with a 59%-premium, I need to expose this as blatant and dishonest misinformation, possibly with malicious intent.

So, here is our 2.02 J-VS1, for sale at HPD for a wire-transfer-cost of $21,827.-. CC-price is $22,975.-.
Now, if you say your stone is $8,100.- cheaper, to what price is this compared? Did your stone cost around $13,700.- or around $14,800.-?

Unfortunately, we do not know that it is a 2.01 J-VS2 (not VS1) with a diameter of 8.06mm. You acknowledge that it has been cut a bit deep in order to get to the 2Ct-mark and that the difference in diameter is not important to you. Fine, no problem, but if the comparison is raised to make the case that we are selling at a crazy premium, the fact that your stone does not have the diameter of a true 2Ct-stone is important, and the reality that you do not care is unimportant.

Fact is, in a correct comparison, your stone should be at best compared to a 1.95 Ct. J-VS2 (not VS1) CBI. Unfortunately, such comparison-stone does not exist, and given the difficulty of cutting such stone economically, it is unlikely to come out of production soon. Still, I can tell you what such theoretical CBI would cost. It would be around $16,800.-, quite a difference with the $22K-$23K you are intent to comparing with.

Sure, there still is a price-difference, but a lot less than what you are trying to portray. We obviously are still talking about a different product, even if size, color and clarity are now comparable.

Anyway, it is fully acceptable if you question our diamonds to be what you would like. But you bringing up a twisted comparison, claiming that there is a 59%-premium, is incorrect, unfair and not acceptable. Hence my reaction.

Live long,

Paul,

No I am not trying to say your stones carry a 59% premium. I am saying that for me, to get a stone of comparable size, I would have needed to spend an extra 59%. And you are correct that I paid $13,700. As far as your comment that "Unfortunately we do not know that it is a 2.01 J-VS2", what are you getting at? It is a GIA graded J, VS2 with a diameter of 8.06. What don't we know?

So in summary, the premium would theoretically be more like 22% ($3100) if such a stone were to be available. Great. But the possibly more important takeaway point is that such a stone isn't likely to show up at all. So I am forced to either go smaller or sacrifice elsewhere. Here's the next closest stone that would be available to me (using only Wink's inventory), and would actually come at a very small price increase.

http://highperformancediamonds.com/shop/clarity/HPD6728/#prettyPhoto

Looking at these stones (the one just posted and the 2.02 carat from earlier, I will go back to my previous questions. There are defects in both stones that I actually think would disqualify them from meeting all the requirements of true hearts and arrows by the purist standards, but correct me if I am wrong.

This 1.71 carat stone has one smaller heart at 6 o'clock.

The 2.02 carat stone has a heart at 6 o'clock whose halves do not meet up evenly, which is also apparent (less so) in the hearts at 7-8 o'clock and 12 o'clock. There is clefting in some hearts, not in others, but the clefting is small and I imagine meets the requirements for true h&a.

My question is, and has been all along, about how minor defects such as these impact performance.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

The difference in price between a VS1 and a VS2 - particularly in a 2 ct. stone - is significant. The difference in diameter between the CBI stone and your stone is quite telling. Your stone may be deeper or have more weight in the girdle. I don't know as I've never seen the specs of the stone you are purchasing. The fact that you may or may not notice the size difference is not the only litmus test for the difference in the two stones.

CBI does not cut thousands of stone per year. If you will go to their website and read about their cutting process - from procurement of a stone or rough to a finished product, you will see the expertise, time and planning that they put into a finished stone. While this level of precision may not be for all - and price being included in that choice - it is for some. Your efforts to quantify the difference between an ideal cut and a super ideal cut will always fall flat - beauty is in the eye of the beholder and purchaser. When people come here looking for the biggest, most sparkly diamond that they can find for their money, they will usually always be advised to go for the smaller, well cut stone. Finding a stone with color/clarity and size that they want is just the beginning and so often what they've found is a less than well cut stone. When other choices are presented, it is always up to the consumer to decide what is right for them. It's just that PS is a place to come for some education about diamonds and choices and they will usually be directed to stones and vendors that are a known source of very well cut stones. The 'most sparkly' stone won't be found among the mediocre.

I am happy for you that you have found a stone that you really like and that hits all of your important high spots. That makes for a very satisfied consumer and that's important. Asking questions of the experts in order to gain information and education is commendable. Asking questions in an effort to debunk what they know firsthand from many years of experience is questionable.

Indeed the stone is hiding some weight in a slightly thick girdle. Obviously to make sure the all important 2 carat mark was hit. I did not intend to bring ongoing discussion about my stone into the thread, but thought it an interesting thing to add considering what smitcompton had mentioned about the premium of a superideal, and to hopefully illustrate to Paul why wanting to know more information is important when the price premium for a CBI is that large.

I am not trying to quantify the difference between an ideal and a superideal stone. I'm asking if anyone else has quantified it. I'm curious if there is published literature or laboratory measurements showing that superideal stones outperform ideal cuts in visual aspects such as scintillation, fire, brilliance, etc.

Regarding your last statement. I am asking these questions to learn for myself and also to help other consumers wondering the same things. I am not trying to debunk what anyone knows firsthand from years of experience. Obviously someone who has years of experience and who specializes in precision cut diamonds also has experience with high tech devices used to cut and assess those diamonds. They also likely have very good relationships with the laboratories doing the grading. This is the reason for my questions about the tools which are used to show that a perfect h&a diamond outperforms one with slight imperfections. If no such tools/data/measurements exist, fine. If they and their customers are seeing the differences but don't yet have a way to actually measure and quantify them, fine. I'm simply asking the question, admittedly over and over again now, because I haven't yet seen it answered.

P,
Your questions about the differences between superideals and well cut diamonds with lesser precision have been addressed by various people, in various ways, in this and other threads. The fact that you are not satisfied with the answers is another matter.

In your quest for quantification, consider some other important aspects of diamond quality; how do you “quantify” the difference between an eye-clean Si1 and one that has a black pique visible to the naked eye under the table. Or one that has a subtle transparency issue? These are important differences that have a bearing on desirability, marketability and price. Yet there is no specific system for quantifying these differences. A similar statement can be made regarding diamond color. While machines are used in color grading to help quantify what the grader is looking at, ultimately the final determination will be made by a highly trained eye. As you have experienced, even something as seemingly concrete and quantifiable as carat weight gets complicated as you assess the value difference between a 2.00ct superideal and a 2.00ct that is hiding a little weight and should have been cut to 1.95.

The best cut grading analysis is indeed based upon science and there are a number of sophisticated tools used to quantify the different aspects that we refer to collectively as light performance. These systems are still relatively new to the market and will no doubt continue to evolve. The fact that there is no metric for “beauty” means that you will ultimately always have to look at a diamond with your own eyes to make the final determination on how important that last level of cut quality is to you.

You have taken the position that the law of diminishing returns means that there is no significant value in purchasing super ideals, and you therefore passionately recommend to others that they instead purchase virtual diamonds with good numbers and decent images. You often point out to people the exact cost savings of a virtual diamond vs a superideal.

You are devoting a considerable amount of time on this forum attempting to help others save money in this way, and that is commendable and I am sure much appreciated. However, the situation is not as simple as you make it out to be. In your exuberance to “quantify” the dollar savings you minimize the overall value proposition which is quite essential to good decision making in a purchase of this nature. An extra measure of cut craftsmanship is part of that value proposition as well as other benefits, assurances and certainties that companies offering super ideals tend to provide. To serve others in the best possible way, it is important to have a full understanding of all related value factors and to give them appropriate weight. (I have seen in recent posts that you are starting to mention things like this and I applaud you for it).

 

[teobdl]

pfunk--your tenacity for pursuing these questions is appreciated by all, even if it may be a thorn to some at times. Whether some are holding fast to ideas due to obvious vested interests, or whether they truly do believe certain ideas to be the case, is probably impossible to sort out on an online message board.

Earlier you had asked about research that quantifies the differences btw super-ideal vs ideal. It's an interesting question that has yet to be satisfactorily answered, probably because no one actually knows.

Some things to keep you learning if you want:
I don't have time to wade through everything right now, but Peter Yantzer, the executive director of AGS, has a few slides about increasing # of perceptible virtual facets by increasing correct cut precision and by increasing diamond size/weight for a tolk MRB. These slides can be found somewhere in Wink's library of videos, but I can't remember which one (maybe the one on scintillation?):

http://www.screencast.com/users/WinkJones/folders/Educational%20videos/media/d1898713-1545-40c7-a7b7-cc9af775c47f

Paul makes an appearance, and John Pollard might have been there too.

Keep in mind that quantifying the differences in virtual facets is one thing--understanding how these VF's make differences in perceived beauty is quite another, especially when one takes into account distance, lighting, vision acuity, and personal taste.

Finally, Sergey (Serg), Garry Halloway, and others have been collaborating on research for a number of years to 1) understand differences in cut, particularly how the brain interprets these differences and 2) to quantify these differences in a way that correlates to human understanding of diamond beauty wrt contrast, scintillation, and brightness. As you can imagine, these are not easy questions to answer, and the research is ongoing. I think some of that preliminary work can be found here http://www.gemology.ru/cut/english/document4.htm . A primary focus of their present work is one-eye vs two-eye perception.

My current personal opinion on the topic discussed is that the pinnacle of cut precision is generally not worth the extra money unless the buyer understands that it is mostly a "mind clean" purchase in the same way that one might purchase an D-E vs a G color.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

As our young newly engaged couples come to this forum for information, education and general advise, the push here is usually to promote these super ideal diamonds. The consumers who love them are often older women(not old old) who have attained a certain financial status to want what they perceive is the very best. Many of these woman had very small engagement rings or none at all when they married. The vendors who spend so much time on here are also those who promote super ideals. They are one percent of all diamonds cut. Perhaps its the one percent who ought to be your targets instead of the newly engaged. Everyone wants the best.

Paul--- I want to tell you that you have aligned yourself with two wonderful people--Wink and John Pollard, who I'm crazy about, when he talks about diamonds. Wink, I think, is our most honest vendor.

There is a place for super ideals, but you (not personally you) ought to give way to other less than perfect cuts. Our young people need to buy homes, pay off education loans, and plan for their future. I don't want to hurt your business, I just want some equal time given to diamonds other than super ideal. They can look forward , as many women and men have done on this forum, to purchase their dream diamond in the future. I think I am tired of this monopoly of vendors.

Annette

Ps--This is my way of saying things I like. Good Old Gold has the best customer service I have ever seen. He doesn't just carry super ideals. He will help anyone within budget.

 

[Envyme]

Great discussion here! Thank you all!

I'm down to 2 stones and not sure besides size what the major difference is? Are all "super ideal" or whatever you want to call the best of the best in terms of cut?

I will say it has to be eye clean even up close! Is that achievable with a VS2 easily in a 1.7? Or will some AGS 000 VS2 show inclusions if viewed up very close?

I saw a few "I" stones and I'm ok with "I" color.

I can get the stone from JBG but can't get the Victor Canera halo I want but I do get a larger stone...or I can get the GOG stone with a VC halo.

So I guess to me having a "super ideal" 100% eye clean up close in an H-I color is what I want.

Is the JBG an equal stone cut wise to the GOG?

Here are the links:
http://w.mawebcenters.com/static/ecommerce/141/141877/media/catalog/product/a/g/ags_13_11.jpg
http://www.goodoldgold.com/ecommerce/1-4ct-i-vs1-superior-round-hearts-and-arrows-diamond.html

http://www.jewelsbygrace.com/new-additions/1-70ct-round-brilliant-diamond-soliatire-ags000-h-vs2#.VRjeN4pHanP

 

[Envyme]

Oops there are 3

Here is 3rd

https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/m0edye

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,


I vote for the Jewels by erica==1.70 ctw agso. You get the ring made as well with it, and perhaps there is some negotiating you can do.

Annette

 

[teobdl]

Hi,


I vote for the Jewels by erica==1.70 ctw agso. You get the ring made as well with it, and perhaps there is some negotiating you can do.

Annette

+1. You literally will not a see a difference. Also that ring looks beautiful. I think it's a nice price for a beautiful diamond+setting. Absolutely nothing wrong w/ the diamond. I don't know anything about return/upgrade policies from them, so just make sure you look at and consider those.

sorry for the thread hijack before, envyme!

 

[pfunk]

P,
Your questions about the differences between superideals and well cut diamonds with lesser precision have been addressed by various people, in various ways, in this and other threads. The fact that you are not satisfied with the answers is another matter.

In your quest for quantification, consider some other important aspects of diamond quality; how do you “quantify” the difference between an eye-clean Si1 and one that has a black pique visible to the naked eye under the table. Or one that has a subtle transparency issue? These are important differences that have a bearing on desirability, marketability and price. Yet there is no specific system for quantifying these differences. A similar statement can be made regarding diamond color. While machines are used in color grading to help quantify what the grader is looking at, ultimately the final determination will be made by a highly trained eye. As you have experienced, even something as seemingly concrete and quantifiable as carat weight gets complicated as you assess the value difference between a 2.00ct superideal and a 2.00ct that is hiding a little weight and should have been cut to 1.95.

The best cut grading analysis is indeed based upon science and there are a number of sophisticated tools used to quantify the different aspects that we refer to collectively as light performance. These systems are still relatively new to the market and will no doubt continue to evolve. The fact that there is no metric for “beauty” means that you will ultimately always have to look at a diamond with your own eyes to make the final determination on how important that last level of cut quality is to you.

You have taken the position that the law of diminishing returns means that there is no significant value in purchasing super ideals, and you therefore passionately recommend to others that they instead purchase virtual diamonds with good numbers and decent images. You often point out to people the exact cost savings of a virtual diamond vs a superideal.

You are devoting a considerable amount of time on this forum attempting to help others save money in this way, and that is commendable and I am sure much appreciated. However, the situation is not as simple as you make it out to be. In your exuberance to “quantify” the dollar savings you minimize the overall value proposition which is quite essential to good decision making in a purchase of this nature. An extra measure of cut craftsmanship is part of that value proposition as well as other benefits, assurances and certainties that companies offering super ideals tend to provide. To serve others in the best possible way, it is important to have a full understanding of all related value factors and to give them appropriate weight. (I have seen in recent posts that you are starting to mention things like this and I applaud you for it).

Bryan,
I would disagree that it is simply a matter of me being dissatisfied with the answers that have been given. I don't feel that my questions have actually been answered, as teobdl has pointed out. The argument being made consistently is that dealers of super ideals and their customers are seeing and appreciating the differences and are willing to pay for it. These dealers make the claim on their websites that optical precision is part of the key to unlocking the diamonds full potential, and often times make sure to post a picture of perfect hearts and arrows next to the ugliest GIA excellent they can find to help make the difference seem large and predictable. After all, it doesn't help business to show a very well cut, mass production line GIA excellent stone. Those are imaginary anyway aren't they?

I am asking if there is research that backs up such claims and if so, does that research make mention of whether perfect h&a are indeed superior to diamonds with good optical symmetry and proportions, but lacking perfect h&a. Are there labs that are capable of measuring such differences? The CBI website (as I quoted in an earlier post) specifically states that labs are not measuring diamonds for scintillation. Since research has shown that improving optical symmetry can improve virtual facet size and scintillation, one can argue that a super ideal has an advantage here. However, there are diamonds that are not h&a but still with very good optical symmetry. Hence the question... how much optical symmetry is necessary for one to see a visual difference. Are there metrics that prove h&a indeed outperform stones with good optical symmetry and decent h&a patterns?

If it all boils down to "We don't yet have the technology to quantify and explain the reasons why we and our customers see added beauty in h&a", that is fine with me. That is an acceptable answer to me if it is indeed the answer. Insisting there is a difference without presenting the evidence that leads to the claim is what I question. What I don't like are the constant fear tactics. The constant warnings that the consumer stands to lose so much in the beauty department when making small sacrifices in cut. That they are doing themselves a disfavor if they don't buy perfection, without making it clear they may not even see the difference between perfection and very good. Overstating that this small increase in precision leads to great rewards and long term satisfaction, while alluding to the fact that lesser cuts aren't as likely to stand the test of time. Consumers completely new to diamonds are constantly warned here on how much they are risking it by buying any diamond that doesn't have perfect idealscope/ASET/proportions. What does that equate to... everyone thinking they need a super ideal.

I'm not saying a super ideal isn't beautiful or that it isn't more beautiful than a well cut AGS 000 stone, but the differences between the two should be put into perspective accurately and not exaggerated. This is ESPECIALLY true for the consumers on this forum, as they are looking to buy online without seeing the stone in person or side by side to the so called less than perfect diamonds.

 

[pfunk]

Teobdl, thanks so much for the research links. I will be sure to look through them to see what I can pick up from those.

 

[ccuheartnurse]

Really like the 1.70 Grace has listed. The ring itself is classic & beautiful too. I don't see on the description what size the melee are but the look is very substantial. If you don't love the ring, she most likely can sell the stone loose, but really, thats one lovely package the way it is.

 

[pfunk]

Hi,


I vote for the Jewels by erica==1.70 ctw agso. You get the ring made as well with it, and perhaps there is some negotiating you can do.

Annette

+1. You literally will not a see a difference. Also that ring looks beautiful. I think it's a nice price for a beautiful diamond+setting. Absolutely nothing wrong w/ the diamond. I don't know anything about return/upgrade policies from them, so just make sure you look at and consider those.

sorry for the thread hijack before, envyme!

+2. I personally think the setting it's in is gorgeous and the diamond itself looks beautiful. But if you truly love the VC setting and that is more important to you, I think you should go that route. Depends on what you value more. If the setting is what you love, don't settle for something else just because it's a little better deal.

 

[ccuheartnurse]

Shoot, got distracted & didn't see that you prefer a VC halo. I think from what others have posted, his settings run about $5K or more depending on metal. I would send VC an email asking the price of the specific one you wanted made. Good Luck..

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Good Old Gold is going to have a heart attack if they read this thread! They absolutely DO carry superideal cuts, but they certainly offer a full range of other nice stones as well.

I think I have already expressed my admiration for Wink, Jonathan, and Bryan in another thread a few days ago, and I will say that ALL of them carry a range of well cut stones aside from superideal cut and will try to fit the right stone to the buyer. I find them ALL to be extremely honest and helpful. This forum was created to promote diamond education and the purchase of well cut diamonds, so I see nothing whatsoever dishonest about that. What is dishonest are jewelers who sell inferior diamonds for exorbitant prices, and we see examples of that ALL THE TIME ("wholesalers", friend of the family, etc)!

Just for the record, I am one of the old women who like superideal cuts and other precision cut stones. However, I do not make it a practice to recommend stones to young people looking for e-rings that they cannot afford. We have a lot of guys coming here with very generous budgets as well as those with modest budgets. Some desire "the best" and others just want the biggest stone they can obtain for the money and could care less about color and clarity. One reason I do recommend considering the best is that my original one carat diamond was not well cut, and I think buying quality is a great idea from the start. While my diamond studs are ACA's, my daughter's e-ring diamond came from WF and is Premium Select...ideal light performance but excellent for polish. So I do not see that every person who comes here "needs" a superideal cut diamond. They can make the decision based on what is most important to them. I have noticed that engineers often have an appreciation for top precision cutting.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Great discussion here! Thank you all!

I'm down to 2 stones and not sure besides size what the major difference is? Are all "super ideal" or whatever you want to call the best of the best in terms of cut?

I will say it has to be eye clean even up close! Is that achievable with a VS2 easily in a 1.7? Or will some AGS 000 VS2 show inclusions if viewed up very close?

I saw a few "I" stones and I'm ok with "I" color.

I can get the stone from JBG but can't get the Victor Canera halo I want but I do get a larger stone...or I can get the GOG stone with a VC halo.

So I guess to me having a "super ideal" 100% eye clean up close in an H-I color is what I want.

Is the JBG an equal stone cut wise to the GOG?

Here are the links:
http://w.mawebcenters.com/static/ecommerce/141/141877/media/catalog/product/a/g/ags_13_11.jpg
http://www.goodoldgold.com/ecommerce/1-4ct-i-vs1-superior-round-hearts-and-arrows-diamond.html

http://www.jewelsbygrace.com/new-additions/1-70ct-round-brilliant-diamond-soliatire-ags000-h-vs2#.VRjeN4pHanP

From the information given, the GOG stone is superideal cut and the one on at JBG is an ideal cut. Both appear to be beautiful stones. I would not buy the JBG diamond unless they will sell the diamond separately from the setting. You want a VC setting and I don't think you should feel pressure to buy a second hand ring with a setting you don't even want. I think the diamond itself is just fine. But I'd have to look at retail ideal cut prices to see what a second hand diamond might reasonably sell for. I will look and be back.

Well, with the pavilion angle at 40.4, I might want to see an ASET on that JBG stone.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I am not necessarily recommending this particular stone, however, it is AGS Ideal cut (000) close to the size of the one you are looking at and comes in at $13,860. It does show that not all ideal cuts are to superideal cut standards in terms of visual symmetry. However it certainly should be a well performing stone. I am just showing you some options close to the 1.7 so you know that you should offer maybe 20% below retail for the diamond itself. They have not represented it as superideal cut, so you shouldn't compare it to superideal cut prices.

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.68-carat-h-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-475822

Or you can split the difference and get a 1.5 ct stone that falls in the ideal cut range and get your VC setting:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.52-carat-h-color-vs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-359893

 

[pfunk]

We have a lot of guys coming here with very generous budgets as well as those with modest budgets. Some desire "the best" and others just want the biggest stone they can obtain for the money and could care less about color and clarity. One reason I do recommend considering the best is that my original one carat diamond was not well cut, and I think buying quality is a great idea from the start.

The problem is many people just come here looking for a beautiful diamond. They are quickly introduced to the top of the top diamonds which is followed by education on the perils of GIA rounding, averaging, and a far too expansive "excellent range". They are also taught of the importance of the idealscope or ASET image and the absolute importance (i.e. requirement) of having it. They soon find out that few vendors can readily and quickly provide such information, and this leads them back to the superideal stone that they were originally shown and informed was the very best within their budget. They end up with the perception that there are very few truly beautiful GIA excellent stones because they were all cut and polished with the sole intent of maximizing profits at the expense of beauty. No one likes to take a risk of such magnitude, and after a thorough education in why cut is king and should never be compromised, they follow suit with the superideal stone.

DS, do you care to share more about your original diamond? Out of curiosity, were the numbers in the range of what would be considered ideal cut? Would it score under 2 on the HCA?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

pfunk...There was no such thing as AGS ideal cut back when I got engaged in the dark ages, and not a single stone at the jeweler was GIA graded for that matter. It just wasn't as common back then. I have no numbers aside from the weight. I will tell you it is F color and did get a lot of compliments because it was a bright, white stone. Definitely not ideal cut. Regardless, you know very well that I recommend stones besides H&A superideal cuts. I even gave ED multiple chances and recommended their stones, but I eventually decided they were shooting themselves with how they handled customer service, posting here, and website issues. There are plenty of GIA Ex stones that should be avoided and some really great ones. You have to have the info to know which are which!!! The inventor of the HCA will be the FIRST to tell you that it is a screener and not adequate info to make a final selection.

One other thing...there is extra cost and extra benefit to buying stones from a vendor such as the ones who carry the superideals and other ideal cut stones as opposed to one with virtual inventories. The trade-in and buy back policies usually are vastly superior. People do use them. Sadly some engagements fall through or there is a change of mind about one of the specs (wanting higher color or lower color and greater size, better clarity, etc.) and an exchange can easily be made. Some choose to upgrade the diamond due to better financial circumstances than anticipated. This may not matter to some people, but it may matter to others. There are a lot of things to consider besides who sells the cheapest diamonds.

Back to Envyme.....Another option (which I may have mentioned before and am not sure if you have done so) is to tell Victor that you have X dollars to spend on a diamond, want a very well cut (ideal proportions) GIA Ex stone at H-I VS2, and let him source you a stone. If you do, I think he will give you a discount on the setting. I would at least ask him about this. May as well cover all your bases if you haven't done this already.

 

[Envyme]

I wonder if Grace can provide an ASET for it?

Also, Victor offers currently around 8-10% off the base price of the setting (don't want to put him on the spot) if you buy a stone from him. I am finding that his prices listed on the stones are a wee bit more compared to say GOG. The issue is I'm not educated enough to decipher if there is a reason for the slightly higher price?

The GOG
http://www.goodoldgold.com/ecommerce/1-4ct-i-vs1-superior-round-hearts-and-arrows-diamond.html $11,303

https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/m0edye $11,530

I know one is an H other I but still if cut and ASET show equal (I don't know enough to say if they are or not) then I'd take the I with a larger stone.

Yes VC has given me a ballpark quote I went to meet him last week! Such a nice man!

 

[Envyme]

Any red flags on the GOG such as pavilion angle?

I have to figure out the HCA score for the GOG and VC but not sure how to do it based on the pics from GOG alone.

 

[pfunk]

I wonder if Grace can provide an ASET for it?

Also, Victor offers currently around 8-10% off the base price of the setting (don't want to put him on the spot) if you buy a stone from him. I am finding that his prices listed on the stones are a wee bit more compared to say GOG. The issue is I'm not educated enough to decipher if there is a reason for the slightly higher price?

The GOG
http://www.goodoldgold.com/ecommerce/1-4ct-i-vs1-superior-round-hearts-and-arrows-diamond.html $11,303

https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/m0edye $11,530

I know one is an H other I but still if cut and ASET show equal (I don't know enough to say if they are or not) then I'd take the I with a larger stone.

Yes VC has given me a ballpark quote I went to meet him last week! Such a nice man!

They are both cut very well. I wouldn't expect you to see a visual difference between them. The diameter difference is not huge, but I think it would be a perceivable difference, though not an obvious one. You really can't go wrong with either one. I think it all boils down to whether you want the setting from Victor.

Edit: Just saw your last post. You need not bother with the HCA. These are superideal stones and will pass the HCA with flying colors, and even if they did not, they have the AGS 0 score in light performance and the images to prove it which trumps the HCA score. You are paying the top dollar for the very top precision cut diamonds.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Correct, these are both outstanding stones. I have worked with GOG and Victor Canera and recommend them both very highly. I think it is nice for a superideal cut stone to go in a top quality, handforged setting such as Victor's. If you are telling us that you want superideal, then you really don't need to look further at the consignment stone, because the listing would have said it if it was superideal.

When I said talk to Victor, I meant he could possibly get you a stone that maybe isn't already on his site if there wasn't exactly what you wanted. I'd really rather have H color, but I think you could get more size if you went down to VS2 clarity. Between these two stones it would be tough to choose. What is her ring size?

(If you went to meet Victor, did you look at his diamonds?)