Fire vs brilliance examples? 34ca vs 35ca examples?

[GiveMePerfect]

Hi everyone, I'm aware that 34-35 degree crown angles are ideal, so I've eliminated everything outside of that in my diamond search. I'm also seeing many people saying they prefer the fire of a 35 degree CA over the brilliance of a 34 degree CA, but I haven't found a single image or video comparing the two. Can anyone point me to pics or videos comparing 34 and 35 degree crown angles?? If not, maybe you can link to a video of your diamond if it has one of those CAs? (I think video makes it easier to see fire.) I know seeing them in person would be ideal but I don't have that luxury right now. Thanks in advance!

 

[musicloveranthony]

I don’t have exactly that. I have a 34.7 (in ring) vs 36.5 (loose).
The 36.5 has more fire in every scenario I’ve encountered.

 

[GiveMePerfect]

I don’t have exactly that. I have a 34.7 (in ring) vs 36.5 (loose).
The 36.5 has more fire in every scenario I’ve encountered.

Interesting! Thanks for sharing. I definitely do see more fire in the loose stone, and the scintillation also looks greater, without any difference in brilliance (which is surprising since the CA is way higher than what the experts recommend!). Do you mind sharing all the proportions for each stone?

 

[sledge]

Just to be clear, the crown angle alone doesn’t make a stone great or bad. It’s all the proportions working in harmony.

 

[GiveMePerfect]

Just to be clear, the crown angle alone doesn’t make a stone great or bad. It’s all the proportions working in harmony.

Exactly, which is why I'm curious to know all the proportions of these two!

 

[musicloveranthony]

The stone in the ring is an ACA branded stone from Whiteflash.

The loose stone is a GIA 3x that I chose because the proportions work together beautifully (on this stone).

 

[sledge]

While @musicloveranthony 36.5/40.8 worked out that is not a safe combo we would recommend. Too steep of a crown combined with too steep of a pavilion.

I am curious how the 36.5/40.8 looks under inside diffused lighting compared to the ACA.

By chance, do you have ASET, IS or hearts image of the 36.5?

Interesting for sure. Appreciate the share.

 

[Karl_K]

While @musicloveranthony 36.5/40.8 worked out that is not a safe combo we would recommend. Too steep of a crown combined with too steep of a pavilion.

I am curious how the 36.5/40.8 looks under inside diffused lighting compared to the ACA.

By chance, do you have ASET, IS or hearts image of the 36.5?

Interesting for sure. Appreciate the share.

outside the safe box but taking into account gia numbers not impossible to work well just not likely..

 

[mrs-b]

outside the safe box but taking into account gia numbers not impossible to work well just not likely..

Always love your comments, @Karl_K. The voice of reason.

 

[sledge]

outside the safe box but taking into account gia numbers not impossible to work well just not likely..

100% agree. Thanks for further clarifying. Based on their other posts I knew @musicloveranthony did more than go by the numbers. However, I was concerned the OP or less experienced user would see that and think it was “safe”.

 

[Karl_K]

100% agree. Thanks for further clarifying. Based on their other posts I knew @musicloveranthony did more than go by the numbers. However, I was concerned the OP or less experienced user would see that and think it was “safe”.

That is a hard line to walk which is why I backed you up.
Then again the exceptions keep it interesting.

 

[sledge]

Thank you for the back up, I appreciate that. You’ve helped me more than a few times. Always grateful for you.

@GiveMePerfect if you aren’t following with what @Karl_K and I are discussing, have a peek at this thread.

GIA rounding - how exactly does it work?

Have noticed that this comes up a lot as an issue with GIA certificates - the gross rounding of proportions as compared to labs like AGS. I ventured onto the GIA website but wasn’t able to fully understand how they do their rounding for borderline cases and was wondering if people here would be...

www.pricescope.com

In short, going off the numbers is tricky at best. So the closer you get to the fringe, the more gross rounding becomes important as it can tip you one way or the other.

And that’s assuming no one cheats. Take a peek at this thread:

Why Advanced Images Matter...A Bad 34.5/40.8...

I'm just as guilty as anyone. Helping someone find a stone and run across one with that 34.5/40.8 combo. You smile. You then run through the rest of the proportions.... 57 table, 61.7 depth, 75 LGF's, 50 stars and medium-slightly thick girdle....check, check, check,check and check You...

www.pricescope.com

 

[GiveMePerfect]

@sledge Thanks! I think I am following what you and @Karl_K are talking about, which is why I'm getting opinions from experts such as yourselves I have a few threads going (all different topics), which you can check out if you're curious to see the two stones I'm evaluating!
Diamond experts: help me choose! (HCA scores 0.5, 0.7, 1.2)
Yellow in ASET image??
Obstruction vs clustering
Feel free to chime in with your opinion!

 

[musicloveranthony]

While @musicloveranthony
I am curious how the 36.5/40.8 looks under inside diffused lighting compared to the ACA.

By chance, do you have ASET, IS or hearts image of the 36.5?

I’ll get some pics or vids of em together in some less intense lighting tomorrow. The loose stone does surprisingly well in every lighting condition I’ve tried. Now, it’s not mounted so I don’t get as much opportunity to compare as I would if it were. I do sometimes just carry it around (yeah, I know that sounds odd but I’m sure this forum gets it. Hah) at work or at stores where I know there’s good lighting. It does compare nicely to the ACA in that regard. It’s a lower color stone so there’s more body color. But light return for light return it does well.

I’m a very picky buyer for performance for diamonds and gems. Color is my lowest priority C while cut is my highest. I bought this stone because when I saw the pics and videos I just knew it was an outlier. It doesn’t have a perfect H&A pattern - the gaps between the hearts and the chevrons are too narrow. There are also a pair of hearts opposite eachother that lean slightly off-center. The two arrows corresponding to those hearts also don’t precisely align with the heads. So, it isn’t perfect - it just wears it all really well. I don’t have an ASET scope, but based on what my eyes see it would probably perform well. The pics I took are just through an H&A scope and me trying to balance my phone on top - so they’re slightly off -particularly the arrow view is just -so- slightly tilted.

Out of curiosity I put the C&P angles, table, and depth of the loose stone into a search on rarecarat (does anyone else allow that much specificity?). I got about 130 results and couldn’t find a single stone I would buy.

 

[GiveMePerfect]

You got very lucky to find that one! Was it priced higher than other stones of comparable proportions? I'm always wondering if these vendors price according to performance or just the 4 Cs and proportions.
Also, do you think the ring setting for the ACA diamond is hindering its performance? I've heard bezels can do that.

 

[musicloveranthony]

You got very lucky to find that one! Was it priced higher than other stones of comparable proportions? I'm always wondering if these vendors price according to performance or just the 4 Cs and proportions.
Also, do you think the ring setting for the ACA diamond is hindering its performance? I've heard bezels can do that.

It was priced very well Even for its color and size. $1,250. There was a branded stone with the same size and color with the typical yellow modifier vs this faint brown modifier that was available at the time. It cost a lot more. Another PSer ended up buying that one for an earring set.

No, I don’t think the setting of the ACA has any negative impact on the performance. If anything, I think it enhances the contrast pattern. I intentionally designed it to have open sides even knowing that should have essentially zero impact on light performance; I just like the way it looks.

Again, I knew exactly what I was looking at, though. It’s definitely an outlier with those specifications all working together well.

 

[GiveMePerfect]

Can anyone tell the difference in fire in these two? I cannot. One has 34CA and the other has 34.5CA.

 

[sledge]

Can anyone tell the difference in fire in these two? I cannot. One has 34CA and the other has 34.5CA.

link doesn’t work

 

[GiveMePerfect]

Whoops, try this one @sledge

 

[gm89uk]

Can anyone tell the difference in fire in these two? I cannot. One has 34CA and the other has 34.5CA.

link doesn’t work

I would say the top one has more fire.

 

[Karl_K]

I would say the top one has more fire.

Difference in angle and distance is the biggest difference and out weighs cut difference in this case.

 

[GiveMePerfect]

Difference in angle and distance is the biggest difference and out weighs cut difference in this case.

@Karl_K Are you saying that the top one looks better because of its position on the finger?

 

[sledge]

I would say the top one has more fire.

Woah, welcome back. Good to see you!

I was thinking about you a few weeks back. I am working on a project and awhile back you had shared a spreadsheet that calculated some proportion data. My personal laptop has been giving me fits and I've lost lots of emails & files. That file was one of them. I did find the old host site, but it appears it is down.

Any chance you can share again? I have a LT account with the same user name that you can use to contact me.

Difference in angle and distance is the biggest difference and out weighs cut difference in this case.

What are your thoughts on the proportions? Below is what is available for both stones.

The issue I see is that table sizes are different, affecting crown height. Stars are the same but because of the different crown heights, the upper girdle facets are also changing. Plus the LGF's are different (75 vs 78 ), which all things being equal (which we know isn't true here) the 75's provide a smidge more fire in the right lighting whereas the 78's are a bit more balanced.

Because of the differences, I think both stones are pretty well balanced with one another as they have different strengths & weaknesses.

I did agree with @gm89uk that the top stone (3.34) looked a little more lively, but it's minimal. Also, at the beginning the huge flashes was coming from the bottom (3.37) which also made me concur with the positioning & lighting.

One thing that seemed apparent to me was I saw more obstruction in the 3.34 when the camera was closer. But again, that could have been positioning as well. It's too bad they don't have a controlled environment to shoot both stones so you could do a fair comparison.

Gem Certification & Assurance Lab

www.gcalusa.com

Gem Certification & Assurance Lab

www.gcalusa.com

@Karl_K Are you saying that the top one looks better because of its position on the finger?

Yup. Think about it, if stone A has more favorable position to lighting than stone B then it may perform better. The lighting environment & specific angle, distance, etc is crucial.

 

[Karl_K]

Not going to quote to keep it short.
Something to think about most people view diamonds in what I call "wow shiny rock" to them the details are secondary to "wow shiny rock" if they are thought of at all.
A well cut stone is going to be "wow shiny rock" across more lighting conditions so there are advantages but as you go up in cut quality the differences become smaller.

Then you have people who are detail observing with everything and have great eyesight. They see more differences than just "wow shiny rock" but may not know why it is different.

Then you have someone who hangs around PS long enough to pick up on observing the fine points of very well cut diamonds.

Always keep in mind it is not cut that makes a diamond bright or fiery its light.
Different lighting brings out different properties of a diamonds performance.

Cut primarily determines how it reacts with the light but without light its just a chunk of rock.
So when comparing 2 stones in a video First thing you have to look at is the light and environment then tilt and position relative to the light and to the camera. Does one have an advantage?
If it appears to be one has an advantage then the right call is "inconclusive".

 

[Karl_K]

What are your thoughts on the proportions?

Would work as earrings but side by side a long time PSer might see some differences.
one on each ear not so much.

 

[GiveMePerfect]

You're all amazing, thank you so much for the detailed feedback/insights! Yes I do agree that the 3.34 on the knuckle has an angle advantage, so I emailed them to ask for the same video but with the 3.37 on the knuckle this time (these people must be so sick of me by now! ).

This decision has been really hard because the 3.37 is better on paper as you all agree, but in the videos I'm seeing more contrast and more perfect arrows in the 3.34, without any less fire or brilliance. I'll post the new vids when I get them tomorrow

 

[sledge]

This decision has been really hard because the 3.37 is better on paper as you all agree, but in the videos I'm seeing more contrast and more perfect arrows in the 3.34, without any less fire or brilliance. I'll post the new vids when I get them tomorrow

I do prefer the crown/pavilion relationship of the 3.37 @ 34.5/40.8. However I am not a fan of the larger 58 table.

If that stone had a smaller 54-56 table you would see crown height push to 15%+ and also those 78 LGF’s would create a more visually appealing set of arrows. All things that would make me like it more

Even if both stones had the same 55 table as the 3.34 those 75 LGF’s are going to yield a fatter set of arrows. Larger LGF = more skinny arrows. That said the table size is making the 78’s look worse than they should, at least IMO. I think this is what you are picking up on when you say the arrows are more attractive in the 3.34.

As far as which stone is more precisely cut, the hearts images tell us the winner is the 3.37. But as we are diving deeper, we are also learning the cut precision isn’t going to determine other factors like fat arrows which may produce more contrast and scintillation.

I am not certain the vendors return policy but I think your beat analysis would be to have both stones delivered and see them with your eyes in all the lighting environments specific to you and see which one speaks to you. Then return the other stone. Alternatively they may be able to at least arrange a shipment to a neutral 3rd party appraiser so you could examine both stones in person.

3.37 Hearts



3.34 Hearts

 

[sledge]

FYI, here is a stone with 54.6 table, 61.9 depth, 34.4/40.8 and 78 LGF. Not proposing as an alternate as it doesn’t meet your color preference and isn’t lab grown. The purpose is to compare differences since this stone is very similar to the 3.37 but with smaller table

First off notice how the appearance of the arrows are noticeable different than the 3.37 with the larger table.

Secondly, look at the crown height. It is 15.5%!

Lastly check out the sparkle and brilliance videos. All of WF stones are videoed in this same repeatable format. Reasonably close enough you can compare videos of their stones to one another and see differences in the videos. I’ve done this a bunch. Of course they are magnified so the differences are easier to see. To the naked eye those differences are much harder to discern.

Diamond | 3.174 ct H VS1 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond AGS Certified | 4392274

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 3.174 carat H color VS1 clarity loose diamond is graded by the American Gem Society (AGS) Laboratories. | 4392274

www.whiteflash.com

 

[Karl_K]

I do prefer the crown/pavilion relationship of the 3.37 @ 34.5/40.8. However I am not a fan of the larger 58 table.

Why? whats the quality issue?
Same with the arrows?

 

[sledge]

Why? whats the quality issue?
Same with the arrows?

Fair questions. I should have clarified better. Both are the same answer, preference.

Nothing inherently wrong with the 3.37. I just don't find it as aesthetically pleasing as smaller tables and fatter arrows, which I believe also help enhance fire when combined with equally complimentary proportions. That said, I would have no issues owning it either, lol.

However, my preferences should not sway the OP either way.

Also, the OP made reference about the 3.34 arrows being more "perfect" in post #26. I think ultimately that is what she prefers/meant as well, but I could be misreading or misunderstanding her.