Likelihood of finding a 'signature' super ideal diamond?

[Lorelei]

[QUOTE="TreeScientist, post: 4326014, member: 97794"

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.

This too bears repeating I think.

Not everyone wants a superideal with perfect '' everything'', some folks just want a pretty stone that performs reasonably well, they're not bothered if the stone isn't the best on paper or even the best performer, they have other priorities. It's good to educate so people know what their options are but in the end, the super louper duper ideal isn't for everyone. There is room for all here.

 

[TreeScientist]

This too bears repeating I think.

Not everyone wants a superideal with perfect '' everything'', some folks just want a pretty stone that performs reasonably well, they're not bothered if the stone isn't the best on paper or even the best performer, they have other priorities. It's good to educate so people know what their options are but in the end, the super louper duper ideal isn't for everyone. There is room for all here.

Yes, it's good to keep this in mind when giving advice to new members seeking guidance here on this site. Too often people tend to go down the rabbit hole and tear apart any diamond that the individual is considering that doesn't exactly fit with what has become known as "Ideal" proportions. It's great to help people find the best diamond for them, which is why this forum is so amazing, but the for them part cannot be emphasized enough.

Yes, cut plays a large part in how a diamond will appear, but many people have other priorities beyond cut when they're making their diamond purchase. Priorities such as cost, reaching a certain size for their budget, buying a D/IF for cultural reasons, owning a ring from certain legacy brands (e.g. Tiffany, Cartier), etc.

Honestly, for most consumers out there, all they care about when buying a diamond is that it is white and sparkly (and maybe that's the ring is a certain brand). So for most people, going out and buying any GIA XXX diamond with a color of H or higher will likely satisfy these requirements Re: white and sparkly. I know it's considered blasphemy or sacrilegious to say that ANY GIA EX is good enough, but the truth is that, for most people, it is. Yes, not all GIA EX diamonds are created equal, but even the worst of them will likely be a hell of a lot better than some "Good" cut from a no-name lab that is typically found at the chain stores.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to educate newcomers on this site and lead them towards the best diamond for them. I'm just saying that SuperIdeals and other branded cuts aren't the "End all and be all" of diamonds.

Two examples that come to mind are @Miki Moto with her Tiffany diamond and also the thread a few weeks back where there was a poster trying to find a large Oval. After she posted a few of the diamonds she was considering, people (including myself) began recommending the Opulance Oval. And rightly so, because those Opulance Ovals are beautiful. However, she politely said that, while they were beautiful, she was looking to maximize spread, so she would be looking elsewhere. But I felt like people just wouldn't let it go in that thread. To me, it was a perfect example of people going down the rabbit hole of cut without equally considering her budget and preferences.

Just food for thought. Don't get me wrong, I love this forum, as it helped me immensely in my own search. But I also think that all diamonds can be beautiful and unique, so other preferences beyond cut should be accepted as well.

 

[Lorelei]

Yes, it's good to keep this in mind when giving advice to new members seeking guidance here on this site. Too often people tend to go down the rabbit hole and tear apart any diamond that the individual is considering that doesn't exactly fit with what has become known as "Ideal" proportions. It's great to help people find the best diamond for them, which is why this forum is so amazing, but the for them part cannot be emphasized enough.

Yes, cut plays a large part in how a diamond will appear, but many people have other priorities beyond cut when they're making their diamond purchase. Priorities such as cost, reaching a certain size for their budget, buying a D/IF for cultural reasons, owning a ring from certain legacy brands (e.g. Tiffany, Cartier), etc.

Honestly, for most consumers out there, all they care about when buying a diamond is that it is white and sparkly (and maybe that's the ring is a certain brand). So for most people, going out and buying any GIA XXX diamond with a color of H or higher will likely satisfy these requirements Re: white and sparkly. I know it's considered blasphemy or sacrilegious to say that ANY GIA EX is good enough, but the truth is that, for most people, it is. Yes, not all GIA EX diamonds are created equal, but even the worst of them will likely be a hell of a lot better than some "Good" cut from a no-name lab that is typically found at the chain stores.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to educate newcomers on this site and lead them towards the best diamond for them. I'm just saying that SuperIdeals and other branded cuts aren't the "End all and be all" of diamonds.

Two examples that come to mind are @Miki Moto with her Tiffany diamond and also the thread a few weeks back where there was a poster trying to find a large Oval. After she posted a few of the diamonds she was considering, people (including myself) began recommending the Opulance Oval. And rightly so, because those Opulance Ovals are beautiful. However, she politely said that, while they were beautiful, she was looking to maximize spread, so she would be looking elsewhere. But I felt like people just wouldn't let it go in that thread. To me, it was a perfect example of people going down the rabbit hole of cut without equally considering her budget and preferences.

Just food for thought. Don't get me wrong, I love this forum, as it helped me immensely in my own search. But I also think that all diamonds can be beautiful and unique, so other preferences beyond cut should be accepted as well.

Exactly and well said.

Once a person knows what they want, they've grasped the basics that cut quality IS very important but they don't want a 'Lamborghini' stone but perhaps a 'Mercedes' will do them very nicely, then that's how we need to help them I believe. There's room for all here and we don't want to be intimidating folk who might want help to find their ' Mercedes diamond' and leave them thinking Pricescope isn't for them, it's for all diamond and jewellery buyers.

 

[Miki Moto]

The more I read everyone's input... the more I really like PS! I was beginning to think PS is only for those who love a select set of vendors and was about to get off PS, but @TreeScientist @Lorelei your comments were spot on and brought me back.

I do agree about the need to stay unbiased for newbies. There is definitely a bias towards online super ideals, especially with a select list of vendors. Super ideal is one measure of a diamond, some articles have said it is just marketing to differentiate, just like Tiffany is just marketing. At the end of the day, it is all preference and one can find a super ideal or non-super ideal that is non-branded with just the same specs albeit with a bit more work.

@Lorelei You are right on target about intimidating folks. I value other's opinions to review all the facts which is why I posted my question seeking honest answers. I am confident enough to make my own decision and not feel bad about what others say because I know these are just opinions, and I make my own decision after reviewing all the opinions. However, as @TreeScientist said, I too have seen posts where a newbie OP asks questions about the specs of a diamond he/she has chosen, but the diamond is not from one of the super ideal chosen vendors here. PSers then respond back telling the OP it's not a good diamond and then offer other diamonds for the OP to look at. Sometimes these responses are based on numbers only and there is not even a photo of the actual diamond. This surprises me as all diamonds have a life of their own, regardless of the math, and tells me some PSers look at their super ideal cheat sheet, and if anything is out of range, the diamond must be a bad diamond. The OP just leaves the thread and does not respond.

I know many here think perfect math and angles = perfect diamond, but it really comes down to preference.

That said, I really do like PS for opening my views about diamonds. I truly do appreciate the super ideal concept. Marketing or not, I do believe the H&As and perfect math & angles should create a perfect diamond which is why I started looking for super ideals and ended up with a HOF. With all the comments here on PS touting the virtues of a super ideal cut, I just wonder if I got a dud HOF and looked at some great Tiffanys which would explain this anomaly because prior to purchasing my Tiffany, I thought the HOF was absolutely the best and was sold on super ideals.

Since many of you have seen thousands of diamonds and are experts in what to look for, I would like your thoughts please... and as I have stated before, honest opinions always please...

Here is a comparison of my Tiffany (non super ideal) against the HOF (super ideal) in different lighting. My eyes tell me the Tiffany sparkles more and is bright yet the stone is not even GIA XXX. Logic tells me super ideals (the HOF) should really sparkle but I see those “dark areas”. What am I not seeing that one should look for? Or maybe my HOF is really the bad stone even thought it is super ideal. This then implies then perhaps an ACA or Brian Gavin would be a better stone and have more sparkle more. I hope that made sense.

If you all say the HOF is the sparklier of the two stones, then I know it's just me and that I truly do not like super ideals. Ignore the color as you are looking at H vs F (another choice I regret... I would choose F-G always going forward as I can see the yellow in H).

I would appreciate any thoughts.

 

[Lorelei]

I'm so glad you decided against leaving Miki, I really enjoy your posts and that you must also love my favourite brand of pearls doesn't hurt either!

I try to always be aware to try to cater for everyone regardless of their preference of where or what to buy. Rather like producing a banquet of the best cuisine, sometimes you just want steak and fries - and that's fine. As long as you've weighed up all the other options, decided you're still getting steak and fries and you will remain happy you chose and paid for steak and fries years down the road, that's the main thing.

So for me I think educate, show what's out there so buyers can make an informed choice, then help them whichever way they decide to go is what's best.

 

[Lorelei]

The more I read everyone's input... the more I really like PS! I was beginning to think PS is only for those who love a select set of vendors and was about to get off PS, but @TreeScientist @Lorelei your comments were spot on and brought me back.

I do agree about the need to stay unbiased for newbies. There is definitely a bias towards online super ideals, especially with a select list of vendors. Super ideal is one measure of a diamond, some articles have said it is just marketing to differentiate, just like Tiffany is just marketing. At the end of the day, it is all preference and one can find a super ideal or non-super ideal that is non-branded with just the same specs albeit with a bit more work.

@Lorelei You are right on target about intimidating folks. I value other's opinions to review all the facts which is why I posted my question seeking honest answers. I am confident enough to make my own decision and not feel bad about what others say because I know these are just opinions, and I make my own decision after reviewing all the opinions. However, as @TreeScientist said, I too have seen posts where a newbie OP asks questions about the specs of a diamond he/she has chosen, but the diamond is not from one of the super ideal chosen vendors here. PSers then respond back telling the OP it's not a good diamond and then offer other diamonds for the OP to look at. Sometimes these responses are based on numbers only and there is not even a photo of the actual diamond. This surprises me as all diamonds have a life of their own, regardless of the math, and tells me some PSers look at their super ideal cheat sheet, and if anything is out of range, the diamond must be a bad diamond. The OP just leaves the thread and does not respond.

I know many here think perfect math and angles = perfect diamond, but it really comes down to preference.

That said, I really do like PS for opening my views about diamonds. I truly do appreciate the super ideal concept. Marketing or not, I do believe the H&As and perfect math & angles should create a perfect diamond which is why I started looking for super ideals and ended up with a HOF. With all the comments here on PS touting the virtues of a super ideal cut, I just wonder if I got a dud HOF and looked at some great Tiffanys which would explain this anomaly because prior to purchasing my Tiffany, I thought the HOF was absolutely the best and was sold on super ideals.

Since many of you have seen thousands of diamonds and are experts in what to look for, I would like your thoughts please... and as I have stated before, honest opinions always please...

Here is a comparison of my Tiffany (non super ideal) against the HOF (super ideal) in different lighting. My eyes tell me the Tiffany sparkles more and is bright yet the stone is not even GIA XXX. Logic tells me super ideals (the HOF) should really sparkle but I see those “dark areas”. What am I not seeing that one should look for? Or maybe my HOF is really the bad stone even thought it is super ideal. This then implies then perhaps an ACA or Brian Gavin would be a better stone and have more sparkle more. I hope that made sense.

If you all say the HOF is the sparklier of the two stones, then I know it's just me and that I truly do not like super ideals. Ignore the color as you are looking at H vs F (another choice I regret... I would choose F-G always going forward as I can see the yellow in H).

I would appreciate any thoughts.

The Tiffany is in the classic setting, the larger stone on the left?

It's hard to compare as we're not comparing apples to apples, especially with the size and only having a couple of static images. But from looking at the photos ( which will only give a snapshot), to my eyes which are middle aged and not as sharp as they were, the stones look to be reacting similarly. If you could do a video and post the proportions, that'd be really interesting Miki, see how many lighting conditions you can capture.

HoF are a very consistent brand and in fact my friend works for them and she adores their diamonds. But I think the heart loves what it loves and without knowing all the proportions, the overall cut precision of the Tiffany, a Sarin scan to see each tiny measurement and ideally an ASET image, it might not be possible to say WHY you prefer the Tiffany. We could say that maybe the crisp precision of the HoF isn't as pleasing to your eyes as a stone which isn't cut to such tight parameters. It could be HOW the stone sparkles, the contrast or lack thereof, the fire, the brilliance, the scintillation differing, so many things. But that you do prefer the Tiffany is absolutely valid, beauty is so subjective and I always think with diamonds there's a little magic involved where on paper it might not look so hot but in reality, it's one of the most beautiful stones and it's the one you love.

Analysing proportions and performance and the why's and wherefore's is fine but you just can't explain human preference! I always remember in a book about Anne Boleyn, can't remember which now but it was a quote from her brother George when his wife Jane became jealous of his admiration for Anne. Jane got in a rage and scornfully asked if he thought his sister was the most beautiful woman in the world! George laughed and retorted ' My dear Jane. Anne is charming because of her imperfections, not because of her perfection' or words to that effect.

And sometimes, it really is as simple as that.

 

[Miki Moto]

@Lorelei thanks for your input. I am actually still trying to convince myself to upgrade to an ACA because while I do love Tiffany for rings and think the premium is worth it, my gut tells me it may not be worth it for earrings (I would be upgrading to 4cttw). So my thought was to skip HOF and go ACA.

Hence that is why I am looking for input on the two diamonds posted and experts like you think. Maybe my HOF is really not a good stone and I should not dismiss all super ideals.

And yes... my nickname... you picked up on it! I am a big time lover of their pearls. I have spent hours looking at and analyzing pearls before purchasing, far more hours than diamonds.

Thank you again for your input!

 

[bmfang]

The two stones you have Miki are both beautiful. I’m not a Tiffany or HoF lover just in terms of the “value for money” argument [just my POV, others will have their own views on that]. I’m also not sold on the quality of staff training that these two vendors give their sales staff also (based on my interactions with Tiffany and HOF vendor staff here in Australia). But both of those vendors stones are significantly better quality and far more consistent than the vast majority of stones found in the vast majority of bricks and mortar jewellery stores out there. I cannot help but say that is definitely true.

But it’s a hard comparison to make when one stone is so much larger than the other. The size of the facets pavilion side on the bigger stone will mean that you will see significantly more brilliance and fire from that stone compared with the smaller stone.

I can see the difference in symmetry in the two stones though. The contrast patterns in the smaller stone are much more evident to my eyes (and they are more pleasing to my eyes than what I see in the larger stone).

 

[Lorelei]

@Lorelei thanks for your input. I am actually still trying to convince myself to upgrade to an ACA because while I do love Tiffany for rings and think the premium is worth it, my gut tells me it may not be worth it for earrings (I would be upgrading to 4cttw). So my thought was to skip HOF and go ACA.

Hence that is why I am looking for input on the two diamonds posted and experts like you think. Maybe my HOF is really not a good stone and I should not dismiss all super ideals.

And yes... my nickname... you picked up on it! I am a big time lover of their pearls. I have spent hours looking at and analyzing pearls before purchasing, far more hours than diamonds.

Thank you again for your input!

Miki, maybe I missed it but do you have the proportions for your HoF? That would tell us more, but it is possible maybe THIS HoF doesn't sing to you and thus the issue..... I'm wondering with the superideal question, maybe there's just too much going on that doesn't appeal, perhaps that type of diamond is ' too busy' for your taste. It's interesting for sure!

I love my Miki's too, I have my beloved strand Hubby bought me and Morning Dew earrings, all gorgeous!

 

[Miki Moto]

@bmfang Thanks for your input! You stated the contrast is better on the smaller diamond which is the HOF. This is really insightful as "contrast" was also used by @Karl_K to describe super ideals in this thread. I have been thinking "all white" for diamonds as to what I perceive to be better, but you and others have commented on the "contrast", or as I call them, the black spots! This is making me open my eyes to look at diamonds in another light.

@Lorelei I posted the specs of both stones a few posts earlier. My gut is the HOF is cut fine and not a poor cut, but it's the "contrast" that I have yet learn to appreciate in finer cut super ideal stones.

Now I'm going to stare at my stones over and over again to study my lesson in "contrast".

Thank you everyone again for your insights. I truly did not mean to hijack this thread. Everyone has been so helpful.

 

[yssie]

@John Pollard Thank you for your very detailed answer! And my apologies for missing your follow-up question - work ran away with me last week, I'm just catching up this weekend

Well, "what they say about suspicions" would have been largely accurate! I'll post more thoughts shortly, but for now I'll say that I was going posit three causes:

1. Technology has improved such that nuance effects of inclusions on light return are more readily and accurately measurable than they were five or ten years ago, and that quantitatively-increased measurement precision has forced changes in rough selection,

2. The diamond market has shifted to accommodate cultures that traditionally value higher colour and clarity gaining buying power, and

3. Clarity grading standards have dropped. The "honest SI1" of five years ago - with a nice non-pervasive inoffensive crystal - is now a VS2. This trend has been discussed on PS many times, though, so I can't really take credit for "getting it"


I'm interested - and somewhat horrified - to learn that suppliers declaring ‘No BGM’ (brown/green/milky) is now matter of course. I'll be very interested in a revival of this topic two years from now.

 

[Mlh]

Older thread worth reviving. Is hca relevant for evaluating the stone with the exact #s on the sarin report. Is under 2 still the most important? What if the overall grade is excellent but some line items are very good.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Older thread worth reviving. Is hca relevant for evaluating the stone with the exact #s on the sarin report. Is under 2 still the most important? What if the overall grade is excellent but some line items are very good.

A Sarin report is additive to the information that HCA or a GIA cut grade provides. It gives you a sense of the ranges of the basic inputs that these tools use. For example, the more consistent the crown and pavilion main facets are, the more it validates the HCA score as they are averaged as inputs. It also gives you a numerical picture of the level of precision the cutter achieved.

 

[Mlh]

A Sarin report is additive to the information that HCA or a GIA cut grade provides. It gives you a sense of the ranges of the basic inputs that these tools use. For example, the more consistent the crown and pavilion main facets are, the more it validates the HCA score as they are averaged as inputs. It also gives you a numerical picture of the level of precision the cutter achieved.

Thank you for taking the time to respond @Texas Leaguer !!

 

[daisygrl]

What is more important in the diamond: perfect IS or H&A? Can you have one without the other? Also, can you have a perfect IS and a not so perfect ASET?