An Infinity diamond... the best there is?

[tenbinko]

I've just found out about it. And diamond industry expert and professional John Pollard mentioned that "A 1.40 GIA G might yield a 1.35 VG, a 1.25 GIA EX (not AGS0), a 1.15 AGS Ideal , a 1.08 "Executive" diamond and a 1.05 Infinity."

And I've been to the website of Crafted by Infinity, and found it pretty convincing...

It seems, then, that an Infinity is the best there is... so, why do people still buy from other brands, is it only because Infinity diamonds are sold in selected jeweler's physical brick-and-mortar stores and thus harder to get and/or are very expensive? If people were after cut quality more than anything else, wouldn't they simply choose Infinity?

 

[Christina...]

They are gorgeous diamonds, but yes they do carry a premium because as you said (or Jon) they are cut for beauty and not weight, therefore they cut away much more of the rough, which of course is expensive. There are many well cut, beautiful diamonds, and people have different tolerance levels when it comes to cut, some want to know that they have a perfect HA, some want a good IS image, some GIA EX, and some simply want a stone that appealing to their eyes. I think it just depends on what level of perfection you are looking for.

 

[oldminer]

Why doesn't everyone buy "the best"? It depends on a peronal preference about what is the best. Is a Rolls Royce the best car for everyone? Is a Ferrari the best car, or might it be a Mercedes Benz AMG 63, or a Subaru BRZ? The bst is as well defined as the most beautiful, not well at all.

People have to buy what they can afford and what pleases them best. For most everyone this is a reasonable compromise, not an ultimate situation with no limit. People want their little part of the "best" as they see it from time to time, but few of us alwyas choose the best all the time since life's necessities dictate many of our choices.

 

[oldminer]

Why doesn't everyone buy "the best"? It depends on a personal preference about what is the best. Is a Rolls Royce the best car for everyone? Is a Ferrari the best car, or might it be a Mercedes Benz AMG 63, or a Subaru BRZ? "The best" is as poorly defined as "the most beautiful", not well at all. Likely, this is the way it ought to be,

People have to buy what they can afford and what pleases them best. For most everyone this is a reasonable compromise, not an ultimate situation with no limit. People want their little part of the "best" as they see it from time to time, but few of us are able to always choose the best all the time since life's necessities dictate many choices.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

There is no reason for me to believe that Infinity is superior to WhiteFlash A Cut Above, Brian Gavin Signature, or Good Old Gold Superior Hearts and Arrows. Those are all precision cut stones with precise hearts and arrows pattern. Infinity costs more because they are primarily sold through brick and mortar jewelry stores. The other three have a different business model and have lower prices because they sell more online. You may not be able to find better stones, but I believe you can find equal stones for less money.

 

[oldminer]

Not so much as to disagree, but to clarify. Diamondseeker has given you his/her viewpoint representative of his/her own characterization of how which one is 'best" seems from one perspective. Their are an infinite number of such perspectives and each may differ. I tend to agree that every single diamond mentioned is a superb product worthy of most everyone's acclaim as "best", but this just does not apply to every single individual. Paul or John can give both factual and marketing reasons why Infinity costs more to produce and has a degree of finish and performance that they feel is at a level which sets it apart. Each potential buyer looking at the very top end of the diamond cut quality spectrum can make their own choice. I think the true decision process is far more difficult and challenging in the upper mid-level of cut quality where a multitude of choices exist and there is little guidance as to how to select a nicely cut diamond which looks a bit better than "good".

 

[diamondseeker2006]

So true, OldMiner! It is far easier to choose from the "best" brands than it is to jump into the very good category. We can recommend all the brands mentioned without hesitation, but when people post virtual VG stones, there is little chance of evaluating them accurately with no info but some numbers. They'd need to send them to a good appraiser if that is the route they wanted to pursue.

I should add that some congrats to Infinity for some effective marketing.

 

[kenny]

... diamond industry expert and professional John Pollard mentioned that " ...

I love John and have met him and dealt with him, but it should be stated that he works for Crafted by Infinity.
That in no way takes away from what he said and I trust him so much he could sell me ocean front property in Arizona.
If John says it then it's a fact IMO, and I have very tough standards when judging vendors.
In my long life I could count on one hand the people I trust that much.

That he works for the company is just something to be aware of.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

... diamond industry expert and professional John Pollard mentioned that " ...

I love John and have met him and dealt with him, but it should be stated that he works for Crafted by Infinity.
That in no way takes away from what he said and I trust him so much he could sell me ocean front property in Arizona.
If John says it then it's a fact IMO.
In my long life I could count on one hand the people I trust that much.

That he works for the company is just something to be aware of.

I agree...love John! I am just quite sure the really nice people at WF and BG would say the exact same about their branded stones as well.

 

[yssie]

There is no reason for me to believe that Infinity is superior to WhiteFlash A Cut Above, Brian Gavin Signature, or Good Old Gold Superior Hearts and Arrows.

My Own Completely Personal Opinion #1:
I'd agree with DS here, unless one wants a H&A and has decided to look at lower clarity stones for whatever reason - presumably budget constraints. I do think the Infinity folk have made an art of cutting more included stones to minimize both appearance of inclusions and effect of inclusions on light return.

My Own Completely Personal Opinion #2:
Given budget constraints, my definition of "best" does not include H&A or branded stones at all. In part because I don't want to pay any brand premiums, and in part because the stones with the sorts of proportions I'd be willing to pay premiums for aren't the sorts of proportions most brands include. Different priorities.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I cant speak for John, but I don't see any claims about "the best" in the Crafted by Infinity literature.
I think that anyone who claims to have "the best" anything, in today's world, is making a claim that can't be backed up.
There's just too many really skilled people- in almost every field- to be able to make a claim that one has the single "best"
I like that the Crafted by Infinity website is very educational in a more neutral manner.


tenbinko, Yssie put it very well too- there's taste involved. By all means look at as many stones as you can with all types of cut quality to see what you prefer.
JMO

 

[swingirl]

As I consumer with an untrained eye who owns Infinity, WF ACA and BGD Signature stones in about the the same size and color, I cannot tell the difference. They are all beautiful and I purchased each one because they fulfilled my requirements at the time. All the stones are graded by AGS and the angles and proportions are almost exactly the same. It's possible a trained eye could pick out the differences but not me.

One big difference it that the Infinity stone came with a story about its history and how it got from rough to me.

 

[diamonds-are-friends]

one is preference and the other factor is really working with someone you are comfortable with. That is usually a huge factor in choosing a jeweler to work with.

in terms of great diamond quality, crafted by infinity is amongst the top ranks with other great vendors like white flash, brian gavin etc....

 

[tenbinko]

I have no access to a brick-and-mortar store with Infinity diamonds, so I wasn't too sure about the actual amount of premium one would have to pay for such a stone, but it seems that it's high enough to deter at least some people from purchasing it? I was curious to know how it's physically different from other top brands, but I think after reading swingirl's reply, it's safe to assume that the top branded ideals are not very different from each other, as least from a layman's perspective, and I'm no diamond expert, so that's good enough for me. (But I envy you, swingirl, you have so many beautiful diamonds.)

Oldminer, you're responsible for creating the AGA standards, right? Have those standards been revised since their introduction? I've read that the AGA is deemed to be overly strict. I remember that for the 1A grade, the pavilion depth has to be between 42.8% and 43.2%, though on the GIA report or dossier, it's gotta be 43% or else... though for HRD, the pavilion depth must be between 43% to 44.5% to get the excellent grade, which must mean that Europeans don't care as much about light leakage, but are more interested in more intense light return? And crown angle too, it must be less than 34.7 degrees, I think? What's the rationale behind that boundary, that anything above that angle would mean a steeper crown than necessary and unnecessary weight retention? But I like the AGA system... strict is good.

Yssie, I'm really curious, what sorts of proportions would you actually pay a premium for?

 

[yssie]

Yssie, I'm really curious, what sorts of proportions would you actually pay a premium for?

I don't want to take your thread too far off-track - but to answer your question I personally prefer a very high crown and small table. The RBs I fall for won't qualify for GIA's EX cut grade but may be eligible for AGSL's 0 grade - the boutiques that produce top-of-the-line precision-cut H&As prefer different proportions constraints.
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Very-Good-Cut-Round-Diamond-1463692.asp

 

[oldminer]

Oldminer, you're responsible for creating the AGA standards, right? Have those standards been revised since their introduction? I've read that the AGA is deemed to be overly strict. I remember that for the 1A grade, the pavilion depth has to be between 42.8% and 43.2%, though on the GIA report or dossier, it's gotta be 43% or else... though for HRD, the pavilion depth must be between 43% to 44.5% to get the excellent grade, which must mean that Europeans don't care as much about light leakage, but are more interested in more intense light return? And crown angle too, it must be less than 34.7 degrees, I think? What's the rationale behind that boundary, that anything above that angle would mean a steeper crown than necessary and unnecessary weight retention? But I like the AGA system... strict is good.

I did create the AGA Cut Class system basing it on my own observations, some of the material GIA used in education, but not in their laboratory, Rapaport's ABC system and the early AGS diamond cut grading system before there was even a thought about an AGS Lab being created to grade cut. I used some advice from people I considered expert during the time after I first put the charts together in an effort to fine tune and make the best system possible. Positive criticism was always examined and likely the last changes to the system were in the early 2000's. The reason I made the 1A category strict, narrow and severe, was my dissappointment in how the retail and wholesale trade defined "best cut" or "fine cut" making the words nearly meaningless and making a mockery of any semblance of honesty. It was a way of demonstrating that a minor diamond dealer, such as myself, with the help of a few other expert appraisers and diamond dealers could define quite well what makes a truly superior diamond in spite of the vast majority who kept saying it could not be done. I think we now see that it can and has been done. Now with more science we have some accepted systems in place which do a pretty good job of defining cut quality and strangely enough, the grading strategy I used looks quite accurate considering it was based on observation and not logarithms, ray tracing or digital analysis. I still believe that there is a rather broad range of finely cut diamonds defined by the 2A and 1B ranges with a very tight top category of highly superior cut in the central zone of 1B, which I call 1A. It is arbitrary. It is the center zone and is surrounded by very fine cut stones. To me, that is how one defines the "best" when using observation as the main tool. It is not a perfect system, but considering the time it was created and the durability of it through the present time, I'd say I got it pretty much correct.

It is always gratifying to see people find the automated system useful as it is the best method for using the information I gathered over a period of over 15 years.

 

[Smith1942]

... diamond industry expert and professional John Pollard mentioned that " ...

I love John and have met him and dealt with him, but it should be stated that he works for Crafted by Infinity.
That in no way takes away from what he said and I trust him so much he could sell me ocean front property in Arizona.
If John says it then it's a fact IMO.
In my long life I could count on one hand the people I trust that much.

That he works for the company is just something to be aware of.

I agree...love John! I am just quite sure the really nice people at WF and BG would say the exact same about their branded stones as well.

I love John, too.

Who's John?

 

[tenbinko]

Thanks a lot, David!

While it seems that your system is proportion-based (so is the HCA) as opposed to AGS's newest performance-based approach, it's the first and oldest system and it's derived from observations... that sounds like what GIA did, except their system came out much later than yours and has been criticized for being too loose, while yours too strict, but personally, I'd rather go with what's more stringent.

My guess is that if a diamond is rated AGA 1a, and its parameters are not on the borderlines, it's absolutely certain that the diamond will look more beautiful than most diamonds?

What's Rapaport's ABC system? Do you know its requirements for its top grade?

 

[yssie]

Thanks a lot, David!

While it seems that your system is proportion-based (so is the HCA) as opposed to AGS's newest performance-based approach, it's the first and oldest system and it's derived from observations... that sounds like what GIA did, except their system came out much later than yours and has been criticized for being too loose, while yours too strict, but personally, I'd rather go with what's more stringent.

My guess is that if a diamond is rated AGA 1a, and its parameters are not on the borderlines, it's absolutely certain that the diamond will look more beautiful than most diamonds?
No question!

What's Rapaport's ABC system? Do you know its requirements for its top grade?

I don't know whose was first - I know HCA predates GIA's system, but I don't believe there was any (explicit) ollaboration between the three entities - AGA, GIA, HCA..

AGA, HCA, etc. are fantastic resources - they make buying diamonds a LOT easier for new consumers. They make it easy to select diamonds that are very unlikely to be doozies. In the process you miss out on other beautiful stones that lie outside the tool's grade parameters, but if what you want is to buy a beautiful stone quickly that's probably a reasonable trade-off!

Specifically, the tools make it easy to efficiently choose diamonds that are very likely to be stunning. They can't, however, point to straight to the most beautiful diamond, the "best" diamond as in the title of this thread - for a couple of reasons:
- None of these consumer tools consider all the variables that contribute to appearance and light return - writing a tool like that would be both expensive and counterproductive to the goal of efficiency! At that point you're in DiamCalc territory.
- Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. Different people see things differently, and prefer to see different things (to a point, obviously - where that "point" is is the heart of the problem!)... of course, what *you* personally prefer to see isn't something any tool can figure out for you. Where they shine IMO is helping you find stones of the type you prefer once you've figured out what you like to see

My point with all this... use the tools in the way that's most helpful to you - if that means choosing a 1A then you can go home knowing you've chosen a lovely stone! If what you're looking for is more of an understanding of what's going on underneath and what your personal preferences are the tools aren't shortcuts or Cliff Notes - that's where there's no way around going out to look at lots of stones in-person.

 

[denverappraiser]

I don't know whose was first - I know HCA predates GIA's system, but I don't believe there was any (explicit) ollaboration between the three entities - AGA, GIA, HCA..

Marcel Tolkowski laid out some rules in a book in 1919 so I think there's an argument to say he was first although even that is debated a bit. He was not working in a vacuum and Morse and others were putting serious thought into the topic well before him. He’s just wrote a book about it and he never actually produced a grading scale. The AGS started calling things ‘ideal’ based on the Tolkowski model and applied a scale to it and GIA had their own separate grading approach decades ago. Both of these have been long abandoned for better methods. In some sense I guess that makes AGS first. The AGA charts predate both the current GIA and AGS methods as well as the HCA. The current AGS approach came out a little ahead of the GIA’s version but well after both AGA and HCA. From your list and looking at the current offerings, AGA was first, then HCA, then AGS, then GIA, but that’s not really the whole story about ANY of them.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

... diamond industry expert and professional John Pollard mentioned that " ...

I love John and have met him and dealt with him, but it should be stated that he works for Crafted by Infinity.
That in no way takes away from what he said and I trust him so much he could sell me ocean front property in Arizona.
If John says it then it's a fact IMO.
In my long life I could count on one hand the people I trust that much.

That he works for the company is just something to be aware of.

I agree...love John! I am just quite sure the really nice people at WF and BG would say the exact same about their branded stones as well.

I love John, too.

Who's John?

John Pollard who formerly worked at WhiteFlash when we first got to know him and now he works for Infinity.

 

[yssie]

I don't know whose was first - I know HCA predates GIA's system, but I don't believe there was any (explicit) ollaboration between the three entities - AGA, GIA, HCA..

Marcel Tolkowski laid out some rules in a book in 1919 so I think there's an argument to say he was first although even that is debated a bit. He was not working in a vacuum and Morse and others were putting serious thought into the topic well before him. He’s just wrote a book about it and he never actually produced a grading scale. The AGS started calling things ‘ideal’ based on the Tolkowski model and applied a scale to it and GIA had their own separate grading approach decades ago. Both of these have been long abandoned for better methods. In some sense I guess that makes AGS first. The AGA charts predate both the current GIA and AGS methods as well as the HCA. The current AGS approach came out a little ahead of the GIA’s version but well after both AGA and HCA. From your list and looking at the current offerings, AGA was first, then HCA, then AGS, then GIA, but that’s not really the whole story about ANY of them.

Well that clears it right up

Really though, thanks for the outline I know GIA only introduced cut grading in '06, and AGS has changed their schema and variety of reports that serve varieties of shapes too many times for the sane consumer to keep track of!

Sometimes this industry's timelines strike me as - anachronistic is the best word I'm coming up with right now. I think I remember that Tolkowski only considered dispersion at the exit diamond/air boundary? In 2006 Bruce Harding wrote an article that's now on PS that explores consequences of the fact that different wavelengths have different critical angles. That timeline makes sense. On the other hand... in 2006 the Octonus group was studying the effects of various absorption spectra on diamond colour, and now there's a study on manipulating cut to change face-up colour of FCDs - those sorts of questions are being not only answered but quantified, that sort of technology exists and has for years, and yet the big labs are still grading body colour by he-said she-said Harry-agreed... it's just so strange when I think about it like that. Strange to see how slowly progress trickles down to mainstream.

That went way off-topic. Oops. Onto another off-topic topic - thank you for playing with us on here Neil we're lucky and glad to have tradepeople like you who regularly volunteer time and effort