2.3 ct RBC diamond comparison: Crafted by Infinity, WF ACA, and James Allen (GIA 3X)

[whitewave]

Ok, just got some shots of mine in afternoon direct sun just now. Yes, very sparkly.

 

[Drizzle]

@Lula
Hi Lula! Thank you so much for input! It was so helpful to chat with you, a long time (and multiple) CBI owner, on this topic in person. I completely agree with you that the darkness is there only under somewhat "harsh" lighting, i.e. direct sunlight, spot lighting, under camera flash like @cflutist shared. And that's because its excessive light return causes the human pupil to adjusts down. I think of it as a "byproduct" of how well it performs in the rest of lighting situations that I love so much.

 

[cflutist]

I posted in your other thread, Drizzle -- but I also wanted to stop by this thread to say congratulations on your beautiful new CBI. And what a treat that you got to meet Paul, John, and Wink, and view the diamond with them. Fun, fun, fun.

From my (lengthy) experience with CBI stones, the "darkness" is seen only in certain conditions. What the camera can't capture is how much full-spectrum color -- fire, rainbows, whatever you want to call it -- is displayed at the same time the stone is "dark." Even in smaller CBI stones, like whitewave's and mine, the amount of fire in a CBI is amazing. My husband and I were having dinner with another couple in a dark, spotlit restaurant. The woman, who was seated across from me, interrupted our conversation at one point to say, "I'm sorry to interrupt, I just have to say that your diamond is the sparkliest diamond I've ever seen." Note that she didn't say "Your diamond is the darkest diamond I've ever seen." It was the large flashes of color she noticed.

@Lula I totally agree. These photos from a darkened theatre on a cruise ship

 

[cflutist]

Here is a photo that my hubby took with his DSLR camera. Learned a trick from Wink and set the aperture to f22 to most mimic the human eye.

 

[Lula]

@Lula
Hi Lula! Thank you so much for input! It was so helpful to chat with you, a long time (and multiple) CBI owner, on this topic in person. I completely agree with you that the darkness is there only under somewhat "harsh" lighting, i.e. direct sunlight, spot lighting, under camera flash like @cflutist shared. And that's because its excessive light return causes the human pupil to adjusts down. I think of it as a "byproduct" of how well it performs in the rest of lighting situations that I love so much.

Hi there, Drizzle You are very welcome -- I'm so glad I could be helpful. I like your use of the word "byproduct"! Yes, that's exactly what it is. I, too, spend a lot of time under office lighting, and that's where I can see the crispness of the facets, which gives the diamond a 3-D effect. The crisp, deep, 3-D effect is what I love the most about CBIs. And, like you, that's what I can't "unsee" now that I've seen it! I know it's rainy and cloudy in the Pacific Northwest this time of year (My sister complains about the weather there; I keep telling her she needs to move to the Southwest!). When the sun comes out and you can view your diamond in diffused sunlight (under a tree), you are in for a real treat! That's when you'll see the kaleidoscope effect we talked about

Here's what @kenny said (in lay terms) about darkness/fire:
"Your pupils get smaller in response to the VERY bright highlights a diamond gives off in sunlight.
That makes the rest of the diamond seem dark.
Poorly cut diamonds may return fewer highlights so your pupils do not constrict as much, making them not seem as dark in sunlight as well-cut diamonds.
Don't blame the diamond; blame nature, evolution or God, whatever your thing is."

Don't blame the diamond, lol, it's just following the laws of nature...and, I might add, the skill of the cutter.

Link to full thread: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/darkness-in-ideal-cut-diamonds-revisited.150108/:

 

[Lula]

Here is a photo that my hubby took with his DSLR camera. Learned a trick from Wink and set the aperture to f22 to most mimic the human eye.

Good capture, cflutist! I need to try that setting on my camera.

 

[srke]

I would just like to say thank you so much for this thread. As you mentioned, detailed comparison videos between various super ideals are pretty hard to find, and as someone who lives overseas where a return will be a massive pain, these videos are very helpful to get an idea of the different flavours of these diamond in different lighting. I don't plan on an upgrade any time soon, but if I ever decide I could justify spending the money, ordering a super ideal from overseas is probably the way I'm going to go and it is nice to see that there is a appreciable difference between them.

 

[OoohShiny]

@cflutist - your set is incredible, you must be so distracting to sit in a room with lol. That second photo from the cruise ship darkened room is also amazing - one of the best photos I've seen that shows how well an extremely well-cut diamond performs

@Drizzle - this is a great thread, thank you for posting it and uploading all the videos! Many people ask "Can you see the difference between SuperIdeal and Ideal??" so this thread will be a great reference tool That you chose the CBI over the others after extensive comparison adds weight to the assertion that yes, it really does make a difference, even if it is somehow intangible (or at least is not yet measurable)!

 

[marcy]

Thank you for the very interesting thread. I enjoyed watching all the of the videos. Your diamond is beautiful.

 

[824jagdds]

For me, the "biological phenomenon" explanation doesn't hold water especially since it's a camera and not my eye that is capturing the light. It also doesn't fit with how I understand a camera to set the exposure value for a photo based on the amount of light entering the lens. It only happens with one of the three diamonds in the video.

Even if it was your eye overcompensating it wouldn't happen instantaneously prior to you seeing a bright flash.

It's got to be something else that makes it appear dark.

 

[824jagdds]

I'm not a photographer, but that being said, consider @cflutist's photo where the diamond goes dark... if there was so much light entering the lens from the diamond but the camera was set to average the amount of light, it may result in an underexposure of the rest of the photo, but the diamond would still be the brightest part of the photo. the camera would not darken the diamond and not the rest of the photograph.

For me, the "biological phenomenon" explanation doesn't hold water especially since it's a camera and not my eye that is capturing the light. It also doesn't fit with how I understand a camera to set the exposure value for a photo based on the amount of light entering the lens. It only happens with one of the three diamonds in the video.

Even if it was your eye overcompensating it wouldn't happen instantaneously prior to you seeing a bright flash.

It's got to be something else that makes it appear dark.

 

[824jagdds]

this is so confusing... just when I thought I was done with the whole CBI thing I see @cflutist's video and it makes me rethink the whole thing.

 

[cflutist]

@824jagdds

To totally confuse you, the video and photos with flash and natural light were taken with a Samsung S7 phone where I just tapped a button to take them.

The photos in the darkened theatre on a cruise ship and photo with rainbow flashes were taken with a Canon DSLR where hubby could control the aperture setting allowing the amount of light into the lens.

I don't know how Samsung processes photos when you select flash versus no flash.

 

[lalala]

this is so confusing... just when I thought I was done with the whole CBI thing I see @cflutist's video and it makes me rethink the whole thing.

Honestly, I think you need to see these diamonds in person and then decide. Perhaps do what Drizzle did. Otherwise, I don't think you'll be happy with your decision and you'll continue second guessing yourself.

 

[valeria101]

.

This is a fun thread !

Wish there will be an OEC in the running next time.

 

[whitewave]

Real quick, a few more. Stepping out into full 11 am sun this morning:


Then stepping into shade a minute later:

Then stepping under a tree canopy two minutes later:

 

[gm89uk]

To be fair to the ACA, it is precision done but compared to the CBI it is a larger table with a shallower crown, more geared towards brightness than fire, which is exactly what's evident in these videos. Get an ACA with a 55 table and a higher crown height, these differences may not be apparent.

This thread is useful to show that the different personalities based on numbers on precision cut stones is very real.

 

[Lula]

this is so confusing... just when I thought I was done with the whole CBI thing I see @cflutist's video and it makes me rethink the whole thing.

Yes, 824jagdds, if your choice in scotch is reflected in your avatar, then you really do owe it to yourself to see a CBI or two in person.

 

[Lula]

To be fair to the ACA, it is precision done but compared to the CBI it is a larger table with a shallower crown, more geared towards brightness than fire, which is exactly what's evident in these videos. Get an ACA with a 55 table and a higher crown height, these differences may not be apparent.

This thread is useful to show that the different personalities based on numbers on precision cut stones is very real.

I think what you're seeing is a function of the cutting. I've owned several CBIs, with varying table sizes and crown heights, and they all have the same "look." In fact, my current CBI is closer in specs* to the ACA in these videos than it is to the specs of the CBI drizzle chose, and it exhibits that same darkness/fire phenomenon as the CBI in the videos. Drizzle saw my CBI diamond in person. We had a discussion about the darkness/fire phenomenon. It's the cut. Paul's CBIs are consistent from stone to stone because of his process.

*56.4% table; 60.9% depth; 34.1 crown angle; 40.7 pav. angle; 79% lgfs

The angles are only part of the story. Cut precision (physical symmetry, optical symmetry, etc.) is part of the story. And the cutter's "secret sauce" is no doubt a big part of it, too.

Back in the day, there used to be a lot of discussion on this forum about cut precision. It might be worth your while, if you haven't already done so, to take a look at the discussions that were happening on this forum 7 - 10 years ago about cut consistency, optical symmetry, sarin reports, physical symmetry, meet points, yaw, etc. I miss those days.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I need a CBI RHR!...

 

[gm89uk]

I think what you're seeing is a function of the cutting. I've owned several CBIs, with varying table sizes and crown heights, and they all have the same "look." In fact, my current CBI is closer in specs* to the ACA in these videos than it is to the specs of the CBI drizzle chose, and it exhibits that same darkness/fire phenomenon as the CBI in the videos. Drizzle saw my CBI diamond in person. We had a discussion about the darkness/fire phenomenon. It's the cut. Paul's CBIs are consistent from stone to stone because of his process.

*56.4% table; 60.9% depth; 34.1 crown angle; 40.7 pav. angle; 79% lgfs

The angles are only part of the story. Cut precision (physical symmetry, optical symmetry, etc.) is part of the story. And the cutter's "secret sauce" is no doubt a big part of it, too.

Back in the day, there used to be a lot of discussion on this forum about cut precision. It might be worth your while, if you haven't already done so, to take a look at the discussions that were happening on this forum 7 - 10 years ago about cut consistency, optical symmetry, sarin reports, physical symmetry, meet points, yaw, etc. I miss those days.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I have to admit the difference in the video was quite starking, and interesting because I have not yet seen any measurable difference in cut quality based on current measures in H&A images and ASET images between the superideal vendors. Short of sarin scan reports, are you suggesting there is another secret sauce that does not appear in conventional tools that separates CBI from the competition?

 

[newjourney]

This thread satisfies my long curiosity on WF vs. CBI stones. Our ACA performs quite similar to the ACA demonstrated here, albeit having a higher crown. It's 35/48 with 56.9% table, 61.7% depth and 76% LGFs. It looks white all the time, and while there are plenty of fire they do not look as bold as those on the CBI's. Perhaps it's due to our table being on the larger side. At any rate, the dark body of the CBI provides a better backdrop for the contrasting sparkle -- very eye catching. CBI is my favorite here.

 

[Lula]

Thanks for sharing your experience. I have to admit the difference in the video was quite starking, and interesting because I have not yet seen any measurable difference in cut quality based on current measures in H&A images and ASET images between the superideal vendors. Short of sarin scan reports, are you suggesting there is another secret sauce that does not appear in conventional tools that separates CBI from the competition?

Short answer: Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

Long answer: Below is an excerpt from an old thread, where Paul explains his process (what I refer to as the "secret sauce"):

"Going back to the original topic of Sara, I think that Sara and others are only touching part of the positive aspects of consistency.
In order to understand this, you need to think with a different mindset. Most contributors here are used to thinking about the product and the product only, where I think that processes are most important. Some of these processes involve the choice of retailers selling a line, and the level of service that they provide (Sara touched this aspect also), but also the production-process which delivers the final product is extremely important.
"Here on Pricescope and on other consumer-forums before that, I have learned important aspects of product. Some of these aspects are the choice of the lab-report, the need for photographs of the actual stone, the ideal-scope, the hearts-and-arrows, later on also of the ASET, and the disclosure of maximum information about the stone, available at all times.
"What many do not realise, is that all these features of the product do not define the product. They describe certain aspects of the product, with great tools, but all these tools have their limitations. In our attempts to educate people, we have a lot of tools to cover, but we often forget to emphasize the limitations of each tool. As such, the mistaken idea arises that the combination of these tools accurately describe the diamond.
"The reality is different however. If a stone passes the test of a tool, it indicates that the stone is better than a certain minimum-level. For example, if a stone has an Ideal cut-grade by AGS, this only means that the stone has passed the minimum-level chosen by AGS to describe the stone as Ideal. Within that grade, there are still a number of variations.
"Also, if a stone passes the minimum standards of H&A, this is not complete information, since the crispness of the H&A-pattern is an important differentiator between stones, but is not part of the minimum standards of H&A. From my side, I have not only learned from these minimum-levels of information on PS, but I combine this with the experience and common sense of generations of the best diamond-cutters in the world. This is necessary, because science has not yet completely cracked the formula that makes a diamond work. As such, I do not have objective data to prove what works, but I guess that I do have the experience to make it work.
"In this regard, we are proud that we did not have to change our formula when AGS and GIA introduced new cut-grades, and the ongoing scintillation-studies by AGS will also have no effect on our formula. What I am trying to say in a complicated way, is that our formula for cutting our diamonds is ahead of its time, where the majority of cutters is only adapting (constantly) to newly arising needs.
"Back to process.
"In our operation, we spend a lot of energy in the particulars of the cutting-process. This approach is totally different to one of product-quality-control. In the latter, one compares the final product (or at a sub-step in production) with a quality-level that needs to be achieved. The result is that everything that passes the minimally needed quality-level passes, since it is good enough. In our approach, I may have been influenced by my father, who used to be working at Ford Motor Company, where he was part of a quality-improvement-team. This team introduced the then new Japanese quality-improvement-methods into Ford's manufacturing process, and, there, I learned that quality is not a matter of checking it afterwards only, it is much more a matter of adapting production-processes so that quality is an automatic result.
"It is our attention to the process that creates our Infinity-brand with diamonds that dazzle consumers and that our retailers are proud to carry. I am often surprised how some consumers describe certain unique aspects of our stones. I know that these aspects are a result of our process and they can only be observed in real-life, as the currently available tools cannot show these. Actually, that is why I think that consistency is important. Our consistent process guarantees a product that also delivers benefits beyond the abilities of the current cut-assessment-tools.
Live long,
Paul Slegers Infinity Diamonds"

Link to original thread (Ignore my bad photos and blathering on -- I was such a newbie and still am, but hopefully a less wordy one )
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...matter-a-tale-of-two-diamonds.123898/#2072026

What I'm not suggesting is that CBI is the only cutter/company that incorporates a "secret sauce" into the cut of its diamonds. Stones cut by Brian Gavin and Yoram (who posts here as Diagem) come to mind.

What I'm also not suggesting is that super-ideals sold by companies that select their stones from a cutting house/houses based on a specific set of parameters (HCA, IS, ASET, etc.), are not beautiful diamonds in their own right. In fact, there are many vendors and posters here who might prefer a different look in a diamond.

What I am suggesting is that the "secret sauce" is what you're seeing in Drizzle's videos, and what you're paying for when you buy a brand, in this case CBI.

And what I'm also suggesting is this is why you have to see diamonds in person. The tools, such as the angles, the HCA score, the ASET, IS, photos, videos, tell only a tiny bit of the story.

Sorry for the thread jack! This is a topic that has been discussed at length some years ago, and, imho, should be revisited in its own thread.

 

[whitewave]

@Lula thanks!

 

[Drizzle]

.

This is a fun thread !

Wish there will be an OEC in the running next time.

OEC is the next on my wishlist... Just have to decide to go for round or cushion! haha

 

[Drizzle]

I think what you're seeing is a function of the cutting. I've owned several CBIs, with varying table sizes and crown heights, and they all have the same "look." In fact, my current CBI is closer in specs* to the ACA in these videos than it is to the specs of the CBI drizzle chose, and it exhibits that same darkness/fire phenomenon as the CBI in the videos. Drizzle saw my CBI diamond in person. We had a discussion about the darkness/fire phenomenon. It's the cut. Paul's CBIs are consistent from stone to stone because of his process.

@Lula you are a wealth of knowledge! Thank you so much for sharing with us. I can definitely confirm that CBI stones have a very consistent look to them. There was another H/SI1 CBI stone in the exact same carat weight I was considering, and the two stones looked pretty much identical IRL. In the end I chose the one that had a slightly more favorable inclusion profile based on the jeweler's feedback. My jeweler also emphasized the consistency by saying how CBI is especially great for diamond studs, because you'll get a pair that looks the same.

Seeing Lula's ring IRL made me realize diamonds look even nicer when set (her stone is also a G color too I believe), which was very exciting! It was a total sparkle bomb, and super eye-catching. Even in the spotlighting where that "darkness" is most apparent, I thought her diamond in a ring exhibited a bit less of than the stone I was looking at loose.

 

[cflutist]

@Lula you are a wealth of knowledge! Thank you so much for sharing with us. I can definitely confirm that CBI stones have a very consistent look to them. There was another H/SI1 CBI stone in the exact same carat weight I was considering, and the two stones looked pretty much identical IRL. In the end I chose the one that had a slightly more favorable inclusion profile based on the jeweler's feedback. My jeweler also emphasized the consistency by saying how CBI is especially great for diamond studs, because you'll get a pair that looks the same.

Seeing Lula's ring IRL made me realize diamonds look even nicer when set (her stone is also a G color too I believe), which was very exciting! It was a total sparkle bomb, and super eye-catching. Even in the spotlighting where that "darkness" is most apparent, I thought her diamond in a ring exhibited a bit less of than the stone I was looking at loose.

I also agree with the consistency comment. Here are my two CBIs
2.21 F-SI1 and 2.79 F-VS2

 

[Drizzle]

I also agree with the consistency comment. Here are my two CBIs
2.21 F-SI1 and 2.79 F-VS2

Your rings are totally TDF!!!! I have a total ring envy...and mine is not even completed I'm currently considering a *very* delicate cushion halo for the setting, like 1mm melees around the center stone - do you think it'Il take away too much from the center stone?

 

[cflutist]

Your rings are totally TDF!!!! I have a total ring envy...and mine is not even completed I'm currently considering a *very* delicate cushion halo for the setting, like 1mm melees around the center stone - do you think it'Il take away too much from the center stone?

I am not the person to ask because I am an old lady that comes from the school where I want the center stone to shine in all its glory. I do halos around colored stone pendants but not on rings.

However there are many beautiful haloed rings out there (check out HPD's Facebook page). It is all a matter of personal preference. Your CBI will perform in any setting you decide to set it in. Congratulations again on joining the CBI family.

 

[valeria101]

OEC is the next on my wishlist... Just have to decide to go for round or cushion! haha

This thread reminded me of tinkering with DiamCalc over this quibble with even the finest RBC of 'going dark' sometimes ! Back in the day, I thought I got something - the RBC simply did not have large enough pavilion facets to glint in the lowest light - rather subtle point & outside the realm of the usual discussion of Ideal RBC parameters, so I never said anything: my solution was no longer a proper RBC anyway (so, I hadn't solved tthe problem !). It seems that photographing diamonds in very low light shows what I thought I saw back then - WWW

Rant over