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

[KristinTech]

I think this is an awesome thread, so I wanted to include my CBI as part of the discussion. I’ve never owned an ideal or “superideal” diamond, just triple ex studs, and my original engagement ring is a triple ex oval. So definitely not a MRB. But I’m including comparison pics.

.90 F CBI from HPD (anniversary ring intended to upgrade to 1.5ish eventually) 10K stuller rose gold.

This was in an elevator with lots of natural light AND overhead spotlighting. The scintillation here would blind you, but this is a shot between scintillation events— very dark body color. But IRL the rainbow show was overpowering! Almost embarrassing, the attention it demands in this type of lighting. Almost. I call it the Pop Rocks look. I read another CBI owner referring to it as a theater show—where the house lights go down and the stage lights come on. I can include the typical gorgeous fire shots, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make. It’s sort of “yucky” looking in this instant:




Near a window on an overcast day:



Same day, but afternoon sunlight/shade threshold. Oh my GAWD I love it. I was wearing an ivory blouse with flowers (pictured above):




Next to my 1.01 ex/ex/ex F oval. I have learned more about my oval in the two months since owning the CBI than in 19 years of wearing it, lol! I have a lively bow tie, and I have found that when the bow tie goes dark, the CBI goes dark. The ends of the oval remain white. For more of an overall white look. That is what I was used to in an F diamond, so seeing the CBI go dark in an overall and uniform way really surprised me. The OP also mentioned this.




Oh, geeze, this kinda made me think I broke my diamond! Not F-ish at all, lol!


(Btw, when this happens, I can cup my fingers around the CBI to turn it silvery white. Hard to show with out being an octopus!).




Oh my GAWD I love it when it does this. My oval, you can see, is icy white. But in real life it is also flatish or “muted,” as someone above mentioned. The CBI continues to flash and shout for joy. Like, shouting to the rooftops for attention!



Another comparison shot, this one is hard to truly compare. The oval’s table is catching most of the light and reflecting.


Another oh my GAWD shot. This diamond is surprising and my favorite thing is when hubby or my kids grab my hand and say, “What is that thing doing NOW?!”

 

[lovedogs]

I know this is an old thread, but the videos are great.
The CBI in these videos is the clear winner, really gorgeous.
However, the visible difference between the CBI and the ACA is too important and they should look more similar than they do, so my guess is that the ACA has some fluorescence and the CBI has no fluorescence.

Flour isn't some horrible flaw. It's really not a problem or an issue 99% of the time. I just don't understand the hatred/ dislike for it.

 

[Stephan]

Flour isn't some horrible flaw. It's really not a problem or an issue 99% of the time. I just don't understand the hatred/ dislike for it.

Yet the only reason I can imagine causing the difference between the CBI and the ACA in these videos is a transparency issue, and my guess is that the "negligible" fluorescence of the ACA is more "medium" than "no fluorescence". Cut difference between these 2 diamonds is not the cause of what we see in the videos.

 

[lovedogs]

Yet the only reason I can imagine causing the difference between the CBI and the ACA in these videos is a transparency issue, and my guess is that the "negligible" fluorescence of the ACA is more "medium" than "no fluorescence". Cut difference between these 2 diamonds is not the cause of what we see in the videos.

It's not as though the stones are performing wildly differently. And ACA vs CBI is often a personal preference, as the cutting is different between the two (although of course both are excellent). The idea that flour = hazy just isn't true most of the time

 

[Stephan]

The CBI in these videos is MUCH more transparent, the ACA is almost as hazy as the fluorescent JA.

 

[TreeScientist]

The CBI in these videos is MUCH more transparent, the ACA is almost as hazy as the fluorescent JA.

I agree that the ACA looks hazy in these vids, but that might not be a fluor issue. May just be a dirty stone. At any rate, the CBI in the vid does appear to have "sharper" fire events in the studio spotlighting (3rd vid), but they look fairly similar to me in the office and outdoor shade videos.

 

[Stephan]

The less "sharper" fire is not due to cut difference, both are perfectly cut and both should look dark and full of fire under the spotlighting.
I'm certain it is due to difference in the material used.
Not all diamonds have the same transparency. My guess is fluorescence causes the cloudiness.
My post in not to support CBI or ACA.
What I say is that the ACA is perfectly cut and also has edge to edge light return, and I don't agree with those who say the minute differences in crown angle and table % are the reason that the ACA has less fire.
But the CBI crystal is simply more transparent (and also perfectly cut).

 

[Stephan]

And the point I want to make is : once you go CBI, WF, BGD, the difference of material will be more important than the cut.

 

[TreeScientist]

And the point I want to make is : once you go CBI, WF, BGD, the difference of material will be more important than the cut.

Oh yes, I entirely agree with you there. If the WF diamond is not dirty, then there is certainly something going on with the transparency in that stone. Which is probably causing the "muted", or less sharp fire. It's definitely not that the fire isn't there. It's just that the light seems to be getting scattered by something either on the outside (dirt) or inside of the crystal.

 

[blueMA]

And the point I want to make is : once you go CBI, WF, BGD, the difference of material will be more important than the cut.

To a certain degree I agree with you, but cut difference can make significant visual differences.
Instead or resurrecting the old arguments, check out these posts/threads
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...between-wf-and-cbi.239329/page-3#post-4315090

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/question-regarding-clarity.241475/#post-4356603
"Clarity as such will not have an effect on perceived Fire, or any other aspect of light performance. That is due to Cut-quality."

 

[Stephan]

I wasn't talking about clarity, but about transparency.
Transparency issues can be due to clarity (clouds, graining...), but also other aspects like fluorescence and even color of the diamond.
Transparency issues DO affect the perceived fire.
And the minute differences in cut between the ACA and the CBI are not the reason of the difference in fire of these 2 stones.

 

[blueMA]

I wasn't talking about clarity, but about transparency.
Transparency issues can be due to clarity (clouds, graining), but also other aspects like fluorescence and even color of the diamond.
Transparency issues DO affect the perceived fire.
And the minute differences in cut between the ACA and the CBI are not the reason of the difference in fire of these 2 stones.

Clarity can affect transparency. Besides the second link shows the industry experts' opinions, so be sure to check it out.

 

[Stephan]

Clarity can affect transparency, but concerning the 2 diamonds I'm discussing I don't suspect clarity to be the culprit in transparency difference.

 

[blueMA]

Clarity can affect transparency, but in the 2 diamonds I'm discussing I don't suspect clarity to be the culprit in transparency difference.

Clarity can affect transparency, but in the 2 diamonds I'm discussing I don't suspect clarity to be the culprit in transparency difference.

Exactly, and given that ACA is a VS stone, the chance if it having a transparency issue is very unlikely.

 

[Stephan]

Exactly, and given that ACA is a VS stone, the chance if it having a transparency issue is very unlikely.

Even flawless diamonds can differ in transparency.
The usual culprit would be fluorescence, but sometimes it is just the crystal.

 

[blueMA]

Even IF diamonds can differ in transparency.
The usual culprit would be fluorescence, but sometimes it is just the crystal.

It's not just the florescence as you say, unfortunately, and yes it could also be graining if you care to check out my thread that's at the end of that second link. ; )
There's a reason why so many PSers seek different crown heights given a pavilion depending on their taste.

 

[Stephan]

I mentioned graining above.

 

[Dancing Fire]

It's not as though the stones are performing wildly differently. And ACA vs CBI is often a personal preference, as the cutting is different between the two (although of course both are excellent). The idea that flour = hazy just isn't true most of the time

Yeah, i don't understand why some people are so negative about flour . Here is my VSB Octavia and my daughter's BGD med blue under the sun, and I just don't see any haziness on these two stones. Maybe I just don't know what haziness look like.




Does the VSB Octavia look hazy to you guys?

 

[blueMA]

Yeah, i don't understand why some people are so negative about flour

In some stones flouro combined with cloud inclusions can take on a hazy appearance under the sun, but often not a problem under interior light. BGD is especially good at filtering such stones out in their blue line, and most likely not a detectable problem under the strict ACA VS stones.

 

[Karl_K]

If you can clearly see the virtual facet patterns all over the diamond under high UV lighting it is not cloudy/oily due to florescence.
Example:


The other picture the ring/diamond it to out of focus to blow up.

 

[Karl_K]

Telling the difference between well cut diamonds in a video is a fun game but is not definitive to how they will compare in person.

 

[Karl_K]

Take a look at the tweezers near the diamond.
It clearly shows there is a light source hitting the 3rd diamond that is not hitting the first or second, that means it is likely a small and directional light source which means it is likely to produce fire.

 

[blueMA]

Definitely more interesting to look at the videos though.

 

[KristinTech]

? Not sure about the photo comment regarding the light source, @Karl_K — the videos make me DIZZY, the tweezers are moving so fast. I don’t think a photo tells anything much with regard to the point of the discussion. Definitely not about the light source? This person holding the diamonds was waving them around with reckless abandon!

 

[Karl_K]

on the videos from youtube click them to play then to the left of where it says youtube at the bottom is the settings button click it, select speed and set it to .25.
The point of pointing out the lighting in the photo is to show even close together like that, the light is not the same hitting all 3 stones which wildly alters what you see,

 

[Karl_K]

btw I cheated and went to youtube to view the videos(click view on youtube) full screen on a 27 inch monitor at .25 speed to pick up the lighting difference in the videos.

 

[kmoro]

? Not sure about the photo comment regarding the light source, @Karl_K — the videos make me DIZZY, the tweezers are moving so fast. I don’t think a photo tells anything much with regard to the point of the discussion. Definitely not about the light source? This person holding the diamonds was waving them around with reckless abandon!

Gotta say that I disagree. The photo tells a lot and the third diamond is definitely getting different light.

 

[KristinTech]

Gotta say that I disagree. The photo tells a lot and the third diamond is definitely getting different light.

Not questioning the glare on the tweezers. But there were lots of videos in different orientations. So I see the photo, but against videos? I’m not sure what that still photo shows? With regard to the original intention of OP.

 

[Stephan]

In some stones flouro combined with cloud inclusions can take on a hazy appearance under the sun, but often not a problem under interior light.

Fluorescence doesn't need clouds to make a flawless diamond cloudy.

Take a look at the tweezers near the diamond.
It clearly shows there is a light source hitting the 3rd diamond that is not hitting the first or second, that means it is likely a small and directional light source which means it is likely to produce fire.

Yes, but there are a lot of videos, and the CBI looks the same in most if not all of them.

If you can clearly see the virtual facet patterns all over the diamond under high UV lighting it is not cloudy/oily due to florescence.

You are talking about extreme cloudiness.
Fluorescence can be much more subtle, like making a diamond slightly glow when it should be dark while partially imprisoning the fire like behind a slightly foggy window.
It's more obvious to see this happen when you can compare to a diamond that is not fluorescent.
Jonathan's video is one of the best to show this symptoms:

 

[blueMA]

Fluorescence doesn't need clouds to make a flawless diamond cloudy.

My answer was to the question was why people have such negative connotation with florescence.

Seen that GOG video of VERY strong florescence a long ago - he makes some of the best videos on diamonds. ; )