Likelihood of finding a 'signature' super ideal diamond?

[Gussie]

Is it possible that your Tiffany returns more ‘white’ light vs fire, by chance? I’m not suggesting one is better than the other - again, we all have preferences. But when using terms like ‘sparkle’, I think it might help to be specific with what you see/saw in terms of the difference.

This is what I was thinking too, except the opposite. If her diamond is a FIC it will be a fireball, which is what I think of as sparkle. But at the expense of white brilliance. This was the main thing I noticed when I traded my gia xxx fic diamond for an aca. The fic diamond had more fire but wasn't as bright as the aca in most lighting. I am definitely happy with the trade but sometimes miss that extra fire.

 

[Miki Moto]

I wasn’t aware GIA was grading diamond cut as “ideal”; I thought ‘excellent’ was their ‘top’ grade for cut.

As to whether an ACA, CBI, BGD, etc. is “better” than any other, I think that is going to depend on the wearer/buyer/viewer. I think it would all come down to the individual, what’s in front of them, the light source (as these will ALL vary depending on where the person is who is viewing it), and what attracts their eye more. I don’t know if any one person can definitively say XYZ brand is ‘the best’ because it all boils down to perception, IMO ... and everyone’s perception is going to be different to a degree.

Oh... also, it’s not even ex ex ex... I think it was like two ex’s and one very good or something. I can’t recall it’s been so long but I remember the specs were not even close to the HOF AGS 000 hence my question if maybe ACA or Brian Gavin cuts differently so I should consider them for my earrings.

 

[Miki Moto]

@Miki Moto for my curiosity, will you post the angles of your tiffany diamond?

Yes. Great idea so you experts can tell me what is wrong with my diamond. Let me see if I can dig up the Tiffany report and also the HOF so you can compare. I’ll post as soon as I can find it. Hang on!

 

[the_mother_thing]

This is what I was thinking too, except the opposite. If her diamond is a FIC it will be a fireball, which is what I think of as sparkle. But at the expense of white brilliance. This was the main thing I noticed when I traded my gia xxx fic diamond for an aca. The fic diamond had more fire but wasn't as bright as the aca in most lighting. I am definitely happy with the trade but sometimes miss that extra fire.

And see, when I hear/read ‘sparkle’, I think white flashes (e.g. white glittery) vs fire (spectral color).

@Miki Moto I don’t think anyone is saying there is something ‘wrong’ with your diamond. All that matters is that you love it, and what you see in it ... in which case, there is no ‘wrong’.

 

[Miki Moto]

Is it possible that your Tiffany returns more ‘white’ light vs fire, by chance? I’m not suggesting one is better than the other - again, we all have preferences. But when using terms like ‘sparkle’, I think it might help to be specific with what you see/saw in terms of the difference.

Hi! Well, that’s a great question and I don’t know the exact difference! The best way I can describe the difference is my Tiffany diamond is very bright and sparkles. My HOF diamond earrings show more contrast of black and white. Does that make sense? The color is very different (Tiffany is a H and HOF is a F), and I can see that difference (a regret actually that I did not choose the G). But the color difference while I can see it is not my compliant. My complaint for the HOF is that black to white contrast. I will look for my reports so you can look st the specs. Thanks for this question... I think you and @ceg may be on to something and I picked a super ideal with incorrect specs. Another reason to upgrade these earrings!

 

[Miki Moto]

@the_mother_thing
After seeing my Tiffany, no I don’t like my HOF which I thought I loved when I first got it.

I think you and @ceg are on to something. Could you please describe what one would see for sparkle vs bright and do ACAs focus more on sparkle / fire but the trade off is they are not as bright?

 

[Gussie]

@the_mother_thing
After seeing my Tiffany, no I don’t like my HOF which I thought I loved when I first got it.

I think you and @ceg are on to something. Could you please describe what one would see for sparkle vs bright and do ACAs focus more on sparkle / fire but the trade off is they are not as bright?

ACAs are cut to balance fire and brilliance. With the ACA, I notice in most lighting a brightness with flashes of color (fire). The GIA xxx I had was cut on the fire side at the expense of white brilliance. In a lot of lighting it was somewhat dark but it had lots of flashes of color. I prefer the balance of the aca.

 

[Miki Moto]

@ceg @the_mother_thing
Found my papers! Here are reports of all three stones. Need your expert opinions;
- Why do I think the Tiffany sparkles more even though it is not a super ideal cut? Does it really not sparkle and is it just me who can’t tell a good sparkle from a bad one?
- Are the HOF stones truly a better cut and my eyes are not smart to realize this?

Please be honest, you won’t hurt my feelings. I am trying to learn from my mistakes so I am wiser for future diamond purchases. PS and folks like you have been super helpful!

 

[cflutist]

Is it possible that your Tiffany returns more ‘white’ light vs fire, by chance? I’m not suggesting one is better than the other - again, we all have preferences. But when using terms like ‘sparkle’, I think it might help to be specific with what you see/saw in terms of the difference.

Yes, "sparkle" or scintillation is not the same as brilliance (the return of white light) and dispersion (aka fire, the return of spectral hues, or splitting of white light into rainbow colors). Cutting also contributes to virtual facets. All contribute to what @Miki Moto saw at Tiffany's. Contrary to popular belief , if HoF's marketing slogan was 100% correct then ALL of their diamonds would have the same identical numbers. I find this hard to believe.

I don't have anything against Tiffany myself (as I have a Tiffany Fancy Yellow in their knife edge mounting) but I would think that given the same two stones and 10 different people, we would all see things differently.

 

[cflutist]

The first thing that I noticed was a Very Good in symmetry. Your diamond is 9.48 x 9.56mm. On superideals this is normally within .02-.03mm of each other. With .08mm difference, your diamond is slightly out of round.

 

[Gussie]

Can you post the rest of the gia report. The pavilion angle is not shown here. In the tiffany report the pavilion depth percentage is given but I don't know how to convert that to the pavilion angle.

 

[gm89uk]

Based on the very small culet, I'd say probably 41.3 to 41.4

 

[Katya DXB]

Apologies in advance if it’s a ‘duh!’ kind of question, but were both stones loose when you compared them or was HoF still in its setting?

 

[gm89uk]

One of the sparkliest stone I've ever seen was a EGL 'very good' cut, very deep. It as in a jewellery store, and far outsparkled a lot of the other stones there. It was terribly cut and performed far worse than other better cut stones, but in that place with the positioning of the halogen lights that fed light through its pavilion, it looked phenomenonal.

That's the day I really learned never to judge what the eye sees in the jewellery store.

 

[Karl_K]

ASET of a virtual stone with the numbers of your Tiffany diamond and one with the HOF numbers.
I has to assume a few of the numbers as they are not all there but based on what you are saying it will be fairly close.
Yes, it does not have a lot of contrast compared to your HOF.
You find you like that better and that's ok.
HOF first:

 

[Karl_K]

Based on the very small culet, I'd say probably 41.3 to 41.4

Somewhere around 41.3 based on the DC model.

 

[gm89uk]

Thanks Karl, but will be 41.4 on the GIA report I presume.

 

[pfunk]

I think the very large size difference is something that should be pointed out too. When you have a diamond that much larger than another, the virtual facet sizes are that much bigger and more are going to “catch your eye”. If you were to compare a 3 carat Tiffany to a 3 carat HOF, it could be a different story.

 

[Karl_K]

Thanks Karl, but will be 41.4 on the GIA report I presume.

Could go either up or down based on which side of 41.3 it falls.

 

[gm89uk]

I think the very large size difference is something that should be pointed out too. When you have a diamond that much larger than another, the virtual facet sizes are that much bigger and more are going to “catch your eye”. If you were to compare a 3 carat Tiffany to a 3 carat HOF, it could be a different story.

I think initially it was a 1 ct Tiffany compared against the 1 ct HOF

 

[Miki Moto]

Hi All, thanks for your help and responses.

To answer some of the questions posted...
- I compared the Tiffany ring and the HOF earrings when they were both already mounted.
- I compared two similar stones... a 1.0ct Tiffany diamond (not super ideal) and a 1.0ct HOF diamond (super ideal) inside the store and also outside the store. Tiffany Bal Harbour is an open air shopping center, so I was able to compare both stones in natural light, around 2pm ET.

I don't understand why a super-ideal does not sparkle more than a non-super ideals as I thought super ideals are the reference, precision cut, and thus every super ideal is supposed to be fabulous, in the top 5%.

What I was hoping to find out is the mathematical reason why a stone sparkles more and what super ideal vendor has diamonds that are optimized for sparkle. If all vendors are the same, then what specs should I be asking for to get this sparkle?

@Karl_K Thank you for your input. Your comment on contrast is a great thought... is contrast the "black & white" that one sees?

Does that mean I like more brightness instead of fire? Is that the trade off in a super ideal... brightness vs. fire that @ceg mentioned. If so, what specs should I be looking for next time?

My apologies if this question is not appropriate in this thread... I did not think the answer would be such a difficult one to answer, and I did not mean to take this thread off-topic.

 

[Starfacet]

Yes. Great idea so you experts can tell me what is wrong with my diamond.

I"m sure there's nothing wrong with your diamond!

 

[Gussie]

There is nothing wrong with your diamond. I think that you prefer less contrast than super ideal diamonds as karl pointed out. Nothing wrong with that and you should be happy that you found a diamond that you totally love!

As for studs, you might want to look for stones in person so that you may judge with your own eyes. Since the stone you love is different than an ideal cut, it may be hard to gauge on the Internet.

 

[Karl_K]

@Karl_K Thank you for your input. Your comment on contrast is a great thought... is contrast the "black & white" that one sees?

Yep, areas that are blue in ASET are dark up close, then sorta greyish further away then at some distance goes bright more like the rest of the stone.
The exact distances depend on several factors, angle of the facets, viewing angle, the size of the arrows and even skin tone and hair color as well as clothing color.

 

[Karl_K]

Someone who strongly dislikes contrasty diamonds is often better off with a princess cut, radiant cut, some ovals cuts and some pears(no bow-tie for the last 2).

 

[Miki Moto]

@Karl_K @ceg

Thanks for the info, very insightful. I guess ACA and other super ideals are not for me then as all of them will have that sharp contrast. Very eye awakening info.

Thanks again everyone.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

If I may ask a question specific to the bolded part of your post above: what is the reason that some SI1 ACAs will have “inquire” vs “yes” for the Eye Clean spec? I don’t mean to put you on the spot with that question, but figure there has to be a logical reason (e.g., wearer’s clarity sensitivity to detect them?) that I just haven’t figured out yet but I’d love to know.

This just came up in another thread. I will take the liberty of copying and pasting because I think it answers the specific question:
While our definition of eye-clean is clear, shoppers new to diamonds may not have a good sense of the impact on overall beauty if an inclusion is technically visible to the naked eye. Some may equate it with an inclusion that is obvious to a casual observer. So we mark those that are technically eye clean as such, and mark those that are not as 'inquire'. In this way we have a chance to give a shopper more detailed insight into how much impact the eye visible inclusion may or many not have on appearance. Before passing up a stone that otherwise has the attributes you are looking for, it may be a good idea to get more perspective. And as someone else suggested, we can also provide additional details on whether the stone is eye-clean from the side and/or at ranges closer than 10".
Let me know if that makes sense.

 

[the_mother_thing]

This just came up in another thread. I will take the liberty of copying and pasting because I think it answers the specific question:
While our definition of eye-clean is clear, shoppers new to diamonds may not have a good sense of the impact on overall beauty if an inclusion is technically visible to the naked eye. Some may equate it with an inclusion that is obvious to a casual observer. So we mark those that are technically eye clean as such, and mark those that are not as 'inquire'. In this way we have a chance to give a shopper more detailed insight into how much impact the eye visible inclusion may or many not have on appearance. Before passing up a stone that otherwise has the attributes you are looking for, it may be a good idea to get more perspective. And as someone else suggested, we can also provide additional details on whether the stone is eye-clean from the side and/or at ranges closer than 10".
Let me know if that makes sense.

Very much so; thank you!

 

[TreeScientist]

This is an excellent thread. Between this one and the color preferences thread going on now, I've been learning a ton over the past few days. I especially like hearing insight from cutters like John regarding the sourcing of lower-clarity rough that doesn't impact light performance. I always wondered how they could know when viewing the rough whether or not it was worthwhile to cut into a SuperIdeal.

I think this thread, just like the color thread, is an excellent demonstration that everyone's preferences are different. @Miki Moto found that she loved the look of her Tiffany diamond even though it doesn't fall into the range that we typically associate with being optimal. While SuperIdeals, on an objective, performance-based level, are undoubtedly excellent, you cannot discount the subjective nature of diamond preferences. Same goes for color. Some people love D color diamonds, while others think they look too cold and prefer warmer diamonds.

Different strokes for different folks.

So wait, what was this thread originally about? Oh yeah, whether it's possible to find a "SuperIdeal" cut outside of the vetted SuperIdeal vendor's inventories. To that question, it is certainly possible to find stones that are very close to SuerIdeal outside of these vendors, it just takes a bit of legwork to do so. The excellent part about the SuperIdeal vendors is that they make your job as a consumer easy. All you need to do is pick your desired color and size and select from their inventory accordingly.

Another topic that has been coming up recently is the comparison of SuperIdeals against each other. At this point, you really need to get down to the nitty-gritty of cutting details if you want to differentiate these cuts (LGF and star percentage interactions, minor variations in crown painting/digging, etc.). I've also enjoyed the discourse within these threads.

So many excellent threads recently! Anyone got popcorn?

 

[Lorelei]

I agree, Tree.

That rhymes hehe!

But yes, many great threads recently with superb input from the experts, really educational AND enjoyable.