Need help selecting H&A 1.29 or larger- pre loved ok too

[Envyme]

Hi, I need help selecting a stone.

H&A 2.9 or larger. Bigger the better! G-H color, maybe an I if it has some faint fluorescence and is white face up., eye clean even if being held right up to the eye so Vs1 or Vs2.

Cut,clarity,size,color are important in that order. But truthfully I'd like a 1.4-1.5 budget is $14,000 for the stone or less.

Open to pre-loved too.

A few questions:

What's the difference between H&A stones? I see so many vendors that have them but I really don't understand what the differences between say Brian Gavin and enchanted diamonds?

A few years ago I really only remember seeing H&A advertised by WF GoG and BG...now Victor Canera sells them too? I understand every diamond is unique but is there a big quality difference between vendors with hearts and arrows? Enough to notice while just looking at it?

I also noticed that some are rated by GIA - Enchanted and others AGS...like I said several years ago I only saw hearts and arrows rated by AGS and I'd see a stone AGS 000...

My last question is what would be a price range to expect for a halo by Victor Canera - platinum for this size stone?
3000-4000?

Thanks for your help!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The only vendors I can recommend as having true hearts and arrows stones are: Good Old Gold, Whiteflash, Brian Gavin, Victor Canera, and Infinity/High Performance Diamonds. Some cutters use GIA and others AGS. But not all stones that are labelled as H&A have the high standards of the vendors I just named.

I think Victor's halo setting will likely run over $4k. But it is outstanding in quality. If you are going with his setting, you might want to talk to him about diamonds as I think there is a discount on the setting if you buy both from him.

 

[Envyme]

Stones I've been looking at:

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R151-G9CXQA

http://m.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3265525.htm


http://www.goodoldgold.com/ecommerce/1-4ct-i-vs1-superior-round-hearts-and-arrows-diamond.html - might be to warm?

https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/m0edye

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Here are a few. I prefer VS, also, but I am listing a couple of SI1's. You can ask how eyeclean they are if you are interested.

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3260767.htm?source=pricescope

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3265525.htm?source=pricescope

http://www.goodoldgold.com/ecommerce/1-32ct-g-vs2-superior-round-hearts-and-arrows-diamond.html

http://www.goodoldgold.com/ecommerce/1-53ct-h-si1-superior-round-hearts-and-arrows-diamond.html

https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/m0edye

 

[RockyRacoon]

Here are some great stones I would consider, in and around your price range.

These are 4 stones with top-notch cuts, and should all be eye-clean:

1.53ct, I, VS2
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3372500.htm

1.53ct, H, VS1
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.531-h-vs1-round-diamond-ags-bl-104077586003

1.36ct, I, VS2 - August Vintage Round
http://www.goodoldgold.com/ecommerce/1-36ct-i-vs2-august-vintage-round-diamond.html

1.458ct, I, VS1
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.458-i-vs1-round-diamond-ags-104077663014

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Stones I've been looking at:

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R151-G9CXQA

http://m.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3265525.htm


http://www.goodoldgold.com/ecommerce/1-4ct-i-vs1-superior-round-hearts-and-arrows-diamond.html - might be to warm?

https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/m0edye

Ok, I was making my list when you posted these. You have some of the same ones I do. If you want H&A, go with the vendors I named. I trust them the most and they have a track record of high quality stones and have been in business longer.

I honestly prefer G-H color, but there are many people here, including myself, who have I color diamonds. Only you can really decide that.

 

[pfunk]

I understand every diamond is unique but is there a big quality difference between vendors with hearts and arrows? Enough to notice while just looking at it?

This is what I am curious to know as well. What are the visual differences one can expect to see between perfect H&A and a near H&A like the enchanted stone you listed? Hopefully someone who has seen both perfect H&A and near perfect H&A side by side can chime in for you and explain what visual differences you should be looking for between the two.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I understand every diamond is unique but is there a big quality difference between vendors with hearts and arrows? Enough to notice while just looking at it?

This is what I am curious to know as well. What are the visual differences one can expect to see between perfect H&A and a near H&A like the enchanted stone you listed? Hopefully someone who has seen both perfect H&A and near perfect H&A side by side can chime in for you and explain what visual differences you should be looking for between the two.

While I can't comment on any particular stones mentioned in this thread, I can address the question above. We are best known for our super ideals but we deal in a broad range of well cut diamonds so we get to look at alot of them.

The difference between an Ideal H&A and one that does not have quite that level of optical precision is not obvious to a viewer in a single comparative observation. The real value of top precision can best be appreciated by observing the diamond over a period of time and many different lighting conditions.

Top H&A patterning is indicative of precise alignment of the facets in three dimensions, such that the light transactions between corresponding facets is as sharp and crisp as possible. This optimizes the critical “virtual facet’ sizes and patterns to the fullest extent of the design. Larger virtual facets will give you bigger and more distinct white and colored sparkles, and transitions between brightness and contrast will give you sharper and crisper scintillation. The likelihood of observing fire is also improved in part because flash duration is not compromised by misalignment which tends to chop up virtual facets and make for chaotic and unintended patterns.

The value of the additional costs involved in producing a high precision diamond in terms of sacrificing weight and the extra time and skill required, is the fact that the diamond is “tuned” to an optimal level. This will be observed in improved optics that while not obvious at first, come to be appreciated over time and is a permanent and ongoing characteristic of the diamond. This is why many folks who have personally owned precision cut diamonds have difficulty settling for less.

 

[pfunk]

I understand every diamond is unique but is there a big quality difference between vendors with hearts and arrows? Enough to notice while just looking at it?

This is what I am curious to know as well. What are the visual differences one can expect to see between perfect H&A and a near H&A like the enchanted stone you listed? Hopefully someone who has seen both perfect H&A and near perfect H&A side by side can chime in for you and explain what visual differences you should be looking for between the two.

While I can't comment on any particular stones mentioned in this thread, I can address the question above. We are best known for our super ideals but we deal in a broad range of well cut diamonds so we get to look at alot of them.

The difference between an Ideal H&A and one that does not have quite that level of optical precision is not obvious to a viewer in a single comparative observation. The real value of top precision can best be appreciated by observing the diamond over a period of time and many different lighting conditions.

Top H&A patterning is indicative of precise alignment of the facets in three dimensions, such that the light transactions between corresponding facets is as sharp and crisp as possible. This optimizes the critical “virtual facet’ sizes and patterns to the fullest extent of the design. Larger virtual facets will give you bigger and more distinct white and colored sparkles, and transitions between brightness and contrast will give you sharper and crisper scintillation. The likelihood of observing fire is also improved in part because flash duration is not compromised by misalignment which tends to chop up virtual facets and make for chaotic and unintended patterns.

The value of the additional costs involved in producing a high precision diamond in terms of sacrificing weight and the extra time and skill required, is the fact that the diamond is “tuned” to an optimal level. This will be observed in improved optics that while not obvious at first, come to be appreciated over time and is a permanent and ongoing characteristic of the diamond. This is why many folks who have personally owned precision cut diamonds have difficulty settling for less.

Thanks for shedding some light on the visual advantage of perfect hearts and arrows TL. I have a few questions and don't mean to sidetrack the OP's search in asking them, but feel they too would benefit from the answers as they are asking about the visual difference as well.

You said the difference between top precision and a step down can't be appreciated by observing in a single session, but must instead be appreciated over time in many different lighting conditions. Does this mean that a superideal will not appear more beautiful in each type of lighting that one may encounter? If so, are there certain lighting conditions where a superideal more obviously stands out above a stone cut with near H&A precision?

Once dirt and grime is introduced to the pavilion, are the light properties changed enough to mitigate the advantages of precise optical symmetry? Or would a dirty superideal still be noticeably different from a dirty ideal cut stone?

There have been several times that I have read folks raving about how their Expert selection, or even premium selection, look just as good as an ACA that either they or someone else they know owns. I wonder then, based upon what you said, if this is because they haven't spent enough time with both of the diamonds to appreciate the difference. All of your ACA, ES, and PS diamonds seem to have a very good cut and the images to support it, and I wonder if the differences between them are subtle enough that a decent portion of people don't notice the difference. But you could probably shed more light on that based upon your in store experiences, where people have the opportunity to view them side by side.

In those meetings, are there certain things customers notice that they see are different between ACA and ES? If they do notice a difference, is it specific or is it just a "This one seems more sparkly" type of response? I ask because I really am interested what is drawing people to the top cut stones over very well cut second tier stones.

In regards to H&A, I have a general question as well. Is it really important to have the perfectly formed, textbook hearts and arrows from a performance standpoint? If a diamond is cut extremely well with a very high level of precision and 80% LGF, it will never be considered by purists to be true H&A because the clefts will be introduced in the hearts. Likewise, if the cutter were to cut the LGF to 75%, the hearts and V's will begin to blend together, ruining the H&A pattern. Still, the diamond is cut with precise optical symmetry, but not to the numbers to produce the feel good H&A pattern. Is it worth it for a consumer to spend a premium to get the diamond with the pretty pattern when the next stone might be cut with a great deal of precision but to proportions that won't be lead to perfect H&A and therefore carry less of a premium?

Sorry for all of the questions, though I think you already know that I like to ask lots of them. Just trying to gain some insight from someone with a lot of experience to share. Thanks!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I understand every diamond is unique but is there a big quality difference between vendors with hearts and arrows? Enough to notice while just looking at it?

This is what I am curious to know as well. What are the visual differences one can expect to see between perfect H&A and a near H&A like the enchanted stone you listed? Hopefully someone who has seen both perfect H&A and near perfect H&A side by side can chime in for you and explain what visual differences you should be looking for between the two.

While I can't comment on any particular stones mentioned in this thread, I can address the question above. We are best known for our super ideals but we deal in a broad range of well cut diamonds so we get to look at alot of them.

The difference between an Ideal H&A and one that does not have quite that level of optical precision is not obvious to a viewer in a single comparative observation. The real value of top precision can best be appreciated by observing the diamond over a period of time and many different lighting conditions.

Top H&A patterning is indicative of precise alignment of the facets in three dimensions, such that the light transactions between corresponding facets is as sharp and crisp as possible. This optimizes the critical “virtual facet’ sizes and patterns to the fullest extent of the design. Larger virtual facets will give you bigger and more distinct white and colored sparkles, and transitions between brightness and contrast will give you sharper and crisper scintillation. The likelihood of observing fire is also improved in part because flash duration is not compromised by misalignment which tends to chop up virtual facets and make for chaotic and unintended patterns.

The value of the additional costs involved in producing a high precision diamond in terms of sacrificing weight and the extra time and skill required, is the fact that the diamond is “tuned” to an optimal level. This will be observed in improved optics that while not obvious at first, come to be appreciated over time and is a permanent and ongoing characteristic of the diamond. This is why many folks who have personally owned precision cut diamonds have difficulty settling for less.

Thanks for shedding some light on the visual advantage of perfect hearts and arrows TL. I have a few questions and don't mean to sidetrack the OP's search in asking them, but feel they too would benefit from the answers as they are asking about the visual difference as well.

You said the difference between top precision and a step down can't be appreciated by observing in a single session, but must instead be appreciated over time in many different lighting conditions. Does this mean that a superideal will not appear more beautiful in each type of lighting that one may encounter? If so, are there certain lighting conditions where a superideal more obviously stands out above a stone cut with near H&A precision?

I believe I said that it is not obvious, not that it can't be appreciated. We are talking about subtle differences, although important ones. There are people who seem to be able to pick out top precision. It is probably a matter of an acuity for visual symmetry. Our brain is wired to notice small aberations in patterns. Some folks are very keen in this respect. Others may not have that level of sensitivity to make fine judgements in a single observation.
I personally believe super ideals are more beautiful accross a full spectrum of lighting conditions. I think they stand out in low lighting conditions and in conditions where the potential to display fire exists.

Once dirt and grime is introduced to the pavilion, are the light properties changed enough to mitigate the advantages of precise optical symmetry? Or would a dirty superideal still be noticeably different from a dirty ideal cut stone?

All diamonds must be kept clean in order to exhibit their full potential. (Some folks reading this know that I am something of a stickler on this issue ) I believe an advantage of top precision is in that by optimizing the light handling capabilities of the facet design light performance holds up better under duress.

There have been several times that I have read folks raving about how their Expert selection, or even premium selection, look just as good as an ACA that either they or someone else they know owns. I wonder then, based upon what you said, if this is because they haven't spent enough time with both of the diamonds to appreciate the difference. All of your ACA, ES, and PS diamonds seem to have a very good cut and the images to support it, and I wonder if the differences between them are subtle enough that a decent portion of people don't notice the difference. But you could probably shed more light on that based upon your in store experiences, where people have the opportunity to view them side by side.

It is true that not everyone is as sensitive to subtle differences in light performance, and like any refined taste diamond quality is something you become more sensitive to over time. It is also true that diamonds at the top end of cut precision cost more, so the intersection of budget and sensitivity is different for different folks. At the ACA and ES level the differences are based upon things over and above what the labs grade for. For many people, and for different reasons, as long as the diamond has the best cut grade from the lab they have most confidence in, they are satisfied that performance will be good enough. Others want the best of the best, and they cannot be faulted for that!

In those meetings, are there certain things customers notice that they see are different between ACA and ES? If they do notice a difference, is it specific or is it just a "This one seems more sparkly" type of response? I ask because I really am interested what is drawing people to the top cut stones over very well cut second tier stones.

This is a very hard question to answer for several reasons. Chief among them is that most consumers may not know exactly what it is that is drawing them to one stone over another. Many times they will be comparing stones that are the same price but have different attributes, trying to balance their particular matrix of factors. In many cases they do choose an ES over an ACA to get a bit more size or a higher color or clarity. They also may have learned something about super ideals in their research and the appeal of knowing that the most important C is world-class, may bias their perception. And again, I think that calculation has alot of merit.

In regards to H&A, I have a general question as well. Is it really important to have the perfectly formed, textbook hearts and arrows from a performance standpoint? If a diamond is cut extremely well with a very high level of precision and 80% LGF, it will never be considered by purists to be true H&A because the clefts will be introduced in the hearts. Likewise, if the cutter were to cut the LGF to 75%, the hearts and V's will begin to blend together, ruining the H&A pattern. Still, the diamond is cut with precise optical symmetry, but not to the numbers to produce the feel good H&A pattern. Is it worth it for a consumer to spend a premium to get the diamond with the pretty pattern when the next stone might be cut with a great deal of precision but to proportions that won't be lead to perfect H&A and therefore carry less of a premium?

The H&A pattern is a visual confirmation of faceting precision. There is still taste to consider and someone may prefer longer LGFs or shorter ones, a slightly more splintery pattern or bold flashy patterns. We have a very narrow range of proportion factors that we use as guidelines for A CUT ABOVE that are at the heart of AGS Ideal (the details of which we publish). When precisely crafted to those proportions the hearts pattern will be very consistent and will not show much in the way of clefting. Precision alone is not what makes a superideal. Planning and design tranlsate into proportions which are also critical for optimal performance.

Sorry for all of the questions, though I think you already know that I like to ask lots of them. Just trying to gain some insight from someone with a lot of experience to share. Thanks!

Pfunk,
Good questions all, and that is really what this forum is all about. We all share what we know, what we don't know, and what we think we know but don't! By having good discussion with a variety of view points represented, visitors to the forum can better reach good decisions about the diamonds that are right for them.
For the sake of clarity I have embedded my responses above in blue.

 

[pfunk]

I understand every diamond is unique but is there a big quality difference between vendors with hearts and arrows? Enough to notice while just looking at it?

This is what I am curious to know as well. What are the visual differences one can expect to see between perfect H&A and a near H&A like the enchanted stone you listed? Hopefully someone who has seen both perfect H&A and near perfect H&A side by side can chime in for you and explain what visual differences you should be looking for between the two.

While I can't comment on any particular stones mentioned in this thread, I can address the question above. We are best known for our super ideals but we deal in a broad range of well cut diamonds so we get to look at alot of them.

The difference between an Ideal H&A and one that does not have quite that level of optical precision is not obvious to a viewer in a single comparative observation. The real value of top precision can best be appreciated by observing the diamond over a period of time and many different lighting conditions.

Top H&A patterning is indicative of precise alignment of the facets in three dimensions, such that the light transactions between corresponding facets is as sharp and crisp as possible. This optimizes the critical “virtual facet’ sizes and patterns to the fullest extent of the design. Larger virtual facets will give you bigger and more distinct white and colored sparkles, and transitions between brightness and contrast will give you sharper and crisper scintillation. The likelihood of observing fire is also improved in part because flash duration is not compromised by misalignment which tends to chop up virtual facets and make for chaotic and unintended patterns.

The value of the additional costs involved in producing a high precision diamond in terms of sacrificing weight and the extra time and skill required, is the fact that the diamond is “tuned” to an optimal level. This will be observed in improved optics that while not obvious at first, come to be appreciated over time and is a permanent and ongoing characteristic of the diamond. This is why many folks who have personally owned precision cut diamonds have difficulty settling for less.

Thanks for shedding some light on the visual advantage of perfect hearts and arrows TL. I have a few questions and don't mean to sidetrack the OP's search in asking them, but feel they too would benefit from the answers as they are asking about the visual difference as well.

You said the difference between top precision and a step down can't be appreciated by observing in a single session, but must instead be appreciated over time in many different lighting conditions. Does this mean that a superideal will not appear more beautiful in each type of lighting that one may encounter? If so, are there certain lighting conditions where a superideal more obviously stands out above a stone cut with near H&A precision?

I believe I said that it is not obvious, not that it can't be appreciated. We are talking about subtle differences, although important ones. There are people who seem to be able to pick out top precision. It is probably a matter of an acuity for visual symmetry. Our brain is wired to notice small aberations in patterns. Some folks are very keen in this respect. Others may not have that level of sensitivity to make fine judgements in a single observation.
I personally believe super ideals are more beautiful accross a full spectrum of lighting conditions. I think they stand out in low lighting conditions and in conditions where the potential to display fire exists.

Forgive me for misquoting you. You did say that it's not obvious.

Once dirt and grime is introduced to the pavilion, are the light properties changed enough to mitigate the advantages of precise optical symmetry? Or would a dirty superideal still be noticeably different from a dirty ideal cut stone?

All diamonds must be kept clean in order to exhibit their full potential. (Some folks reading this know that I am something of a stickler on this issue ) I believe an advantage of top precision is in that by optimizing the light handling capabilities of the facet design light performance holds up better under duress.

There have been several times that I have read folks raving about how their Expert selection, or even premium selection, look just as good as an ACA that either they or someone else they know owns. I wonder then, based upon what you said, if this is because they haven't spent enough time with both of the diamonds to appreciate the difference. All of your ACA, ES, and PS diamonds seem to have a very good cut and the images to support it, and I wonder if the differences between them are subtle enough that a decent portion of people don't notice the difference. But you could probably shed more light on that based upon your in store experiences, where people have the opportunity to view them side by side.

It is true that not everyone is as sensitive to subtle differences in light performance, and like any refined taste diamond quality is something you become more sensitive to over time. It is also true that diamonds at the top end of cut precision cost more, so the intersection of budget and sensitivity is different for different folks. At the ACA and ES level the differences are based upon things over and above what the labs grade for. For many people, and for different reasons, as long as the diamond has the best cut grade from the lab they have most confidence in, they are satisfied that performance will be good enough. Others want the best of the best, and they cannot be faulted for that!

Entirely agree that no one should be faulted for wanting the best cut possible. My issue is that for customers buying a stone online, the visual difference between a H&A superideal and an ideal cut can't be well explained to them. It's not possible to be able to tell them how their eyes will perceive the stone. And while it is no doubt important to know that cut is the major determinant of beauty, I feel like people are often convinced that they stand to lose a great deal of beauty even when making small sacrifices to cut quality. When you're buying online and some people don't even have the visual acuity to detect the differences, it is hard for me to tell them to spend the extra money on something they might not even be able see. This is why I would rather recommend "second tier" stones which allows for cost savings or improvements to the other c's. To some, the visual difference between an ACA and an ES is going to be like the difference between a VS1 and a VS2. And the argument that diamonds don't follow the law of diminishing returns to me is incorrect, as had been discussed in an earlier thread of mine. There is no need to rehash that, but I have an issue with the argument that superideals somehow maintain the enamor of their owners because they continue to amaze, while less superior cuts somehow "lose their luster" because the owner knows in the back of their mind that they cheaped out on cut.

In those meetings, are there certain things customers notice that they see are different between ACA and ES? If they do notice a difference, is it specific or is it just a "This one seems more sparkly" type of response? I ask because I really am interested what is drawing people to the top cut stones over very well cut second tier stones.

This is a very hard question to answer for several reasons. Chief among them is that most consumers may not know exactly what it is that is drawing them to one stone over another. Many times they will be comparing stones that are the same price but have different attributes, trying to balance their particular matrix of factors. In many cases they do choose an ES over an ACA to get a bit more size or a higher color or clarity. They also may have learned something about super ideals in their research and the appeal of knowing that the most important C is world-class, may bias their perception. And again, I think that calculation has alot of merit.

This is in line with what I expected to hear. I imagine it is hard for the average consumer to be able to explain what they are seeing as differences; one because it is hard to pinpoint exactly what the difference is and two because they don't have the diamond vocab to even explain the difference that they see. Also, I think it is important what you said about bias having an effect. That is why I think it is imperative for consumers on forums to get a balanced perspective. If they are constantly told that sacrifices in cut are highly risky, the chance that they will gravitate towards only the superideals becomes greater. They picture in their minds a lifeless diamond next to an incredible diamond, when that is far from the truth. A lot of people who come here are average consumers, many of which would be happy with a chain store, ungraded stone. Yet here, they are often told that anything that doesn't fall into strict ideal proportions with all the images to support perfect light return can't be assumed to be beautiful. Hence they play it safe and go straight to the "best" so as to take all risk out of the equation. These are often the only stones that have all the information they are told they need in order to know what they are getting in terms of quality. This often means making sacrifices to things that they very well may have easily seen, whether that be a noticeably larger diamond or a difference in color.

In regards to H&A, I have a general question as well. Is it really important to have the perfectly formed, textbook hearts and arrows from a performance standpoint? If a diamond is cut extremely well with a very high level of precision and 80% LGF, it will never be considered by purists to be true H&A because the clefts will be introduced in the hearts. Likewise, if the cutter were to cut the LGF to 75%, the hearts and V's will begin to blend together, ruining the H&A pattern. Still, the diamond is cut with precise optical symmetry, but not to the numbers to produce the feel good H&A pattern. Is it worth it for a consumer to spend a premium to get the diamond with the pretty pattern when the next stone might be cut with a great deal of precision but to proportions that won't be lead to perfect H&A and therefore carry less of a premium?

The H&A pattern is a visual confirmation of faceting precision. There is still taste to consider and someone may prefer longer LGFs or shorter ones, a slightly more splintery pattern or bold flashy patterns. We have a very narrow range of proportion factors that we use as guidelines for A CUT ABOVE that are at the heart of AGS Ideal (the details of which we publish). When precisely crafted to those proportions the hearts pattern will be very consistent and will not show much in the way of clefting. Precision alone is not what makes a superideal. Planning and design tranlsate into proportions which are also critical for optimal performance.

TL, based on the last couple sentences here are you saying that the proportions of a superideal stone are the optimal proportions for diamond performance? For example, I know that the limits for LGF on an ACA are 76-80%. Is this because numbers below 76% or above 80% translate to suboptimal performance? If so, how is that decrease in performance measured and consequently deemed suboptimal? Are the proportions that you use to qualify stones for ACA proven to give optimal, measurable performance increases over ES or PS stones? Or are these just the proportions needed to achieve the pattern of perfect H&A? Stones with 75% LGF or 81% LGF can still produce a beautiful diamond scoring 0 in light performance with a great ASET image can't they? How is it that these can be considered suboptimal when compared to an ACA?

Sorry for all of the questions, though I think you already know that I like to ask lots of them. Just trying to gain some insight from someone with a lot of experience to share. Thanks!

Pfunk,
Good questions all, and that is really what this forum is all about. We all share what we know, what we don't know, and what we think we know but don't! By having good discussion with a variety of view points represented, visitors to the forum can better reach good decisions about the diamonds that are right for them.
For the sake of clarity I have embedded my responses above in blue.

TL, I know you are busy and I appreciate you taking time out of your day to address my questions and share your knowledge with the community. It is something you don't have to do, but it is appreciated by myself and others I am sure. Making yourself so available is certainly a great asset and should be very reassuring for your customers and prospective customers.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I understand every diamond is unique but is there a big quality difference between vendors with hearts and arrows? Enough to notice while just looking at it?

This is what I am curious to know as well. What are the visual differences one can expect to see between perfect H&A and a near H&A like the enchanted stone you listed? Hopefully someone who has seen both perfect H&A and near perfect H&A side by side can chime in for you and explain what visual differences you should be looking for between the two.

While I can't comment on any particular stones mentioned in this thread, I can address the question above. We are best known for our super ideals but we deal in a broad range of well cut diamonds so we get to look at alot of them.

The difference between an Ideal H&A and one that does not have quite that level of optical precision is not obvious to a viewer in a single comparative observation. The real value of top precision can best be appreciated by observing the diamond over a period of time and many different lighting conditions.

Top H&A patterning is indicative of precise alignment of the facets in three dimensions, such that the light transactions between corresponding facets is as sharp and crisp as possible. This optimizes the critical “virtual facet’ sizes and patterns to the fullest extent of the design. Larger virtual facets will give you bigger and more distinct white and colored sparkles, and transitions between brightness and contrast will give you sharper and crisper scintillation. The likelihood of observing fire is also improved in part because flash duration is not compromised by misalignment which tends to chop up virtual facets and make for chaotic and unintended patterns.

The value of the additional costs involved in producing a high precision diamond in terms of sacrificing weight and the extra time and skill required, is the fact that the diamond is “tuned” to an optimal level. This will be observed in improved optics that while not obvious at first, come to be appreciated over time and is a permanent and ongoing characteristic of the diamond. This is why many folks who have personally owned precision cut diamonds have difficulty settling for less.

Thanks for shedding some light on the visual advantage of perfect hearts and arrows TL. I have a few questions and don't mean to sidetrack the OP's search in asking them, but feel they too would benefit from the answers as they are asking about the visual difference as well.

You said the difference between top precision and a step down can't be appreciated by observing in a single session, but must instead be appreciated over time in many different lighting conditions. Does this mean that a superideal will not appear more beautiful in each type of lighting that one may encounter? If so, are there certain lighting conditions where a superideal more obviously stands out above a stone cut with near H&A precision?

I believe I said that it is not obvious, not that it can't be appreciated. We are talking about subtle differences, although important ones. There are people who seem to be able to pick out top precision. It is probably a matter of an acuity for visual symmetry. Our brain is wired to notice small aberations in patterns. Some folks are very keen in this respect. Others may not have that level of sensitivity to make fine judgements in a single observation.
I personally believe super ideals are more beautiful accross a full spectrum of lighting conditions. I think they stand out in low lighting conditions and in conditions where the potential to display fire exists.

Forgive me for misquoting you. You did say that it's not obvious.

Once dirt and grime is introduced to the pavilion, are the light properties changed enough to mitigate the advantages of precise optical symmetry? Or would a dirty superideal still be noticeably different from a dirty ideal cut stone?

All diamonds must be kept clean in order to exhibit their full potential. (Some folks reading this know that I am something of a stickler on this issue ) I believe an advantage of top precision is in that by optimizing the light handling capabilities of the facet design light performance holds up better under duress.

There have been several times that I have read folks raving about how their Expert selection, or even premium selection, look just as good as an ACA that either they or someone else they know owns. I wonder then, based upon what you said, if this is because they haven't spent enough time with both of the diamonds to appreciate the difference. All of your ACA, ES, and PS diamonds seem to have a very good cut and the images to support it, and I wonder if the differences between them are subtle enough that a decent portion of people don't notice the difference. But you could probably shed more light on that based upon your in store experiences, where people have the opportunity to view them side by side.

It is true that not everyone is as sensitive to subtle differences in light performance, and like any refined taste diamond quality is something you become more sensitive to over time. It is also true that diamonds at the top end of cut precision cost more, so the intersection of budget and sensitivity is different for different folks. At the ACA and ES level the differences are based upon things over and above what the labs grade for. For many people, and for different reasons, as long as the diamond has the best cut grade from the lab they have most confidence in, they are satisfied that performance will be good enough. Others want the best of the best, and they cannot be faulted for that!

Entirely agree that no one should be faulted for wanting the best cut possible. My issue is that for customers buying a stone online, the visual difference between a H&A superideal and an ideal cut can't be well explained to them. It's not possible to be able to tell them how their eyes will perceive the stone. And while it is no doubt important to know that cut is the major determinant of beauty, I feel like people are often convinced that they stand to lose a great deal of beauty even when making small sacrifices to cut quality. When you're buying online and some people don't even have the visual acuity to detect the differences, it is hard for me to tell them to spend the extra money on something they might not even be able see. This is why I would rather recommend "second tier" stones which allows for cost savings or improvements to the other c's. To some, the visual difference between an ACA and an ES is going to be like the difference between a VS1 and a VS2. And the argument that diamonds don't follow the law of diminishing returns to me is incorrect, as had been discussed in an earlier thread of mine. There is no need to rehash that, but I have an issue with the argument that superideals somehow maintain the enamor of their owners because they continue to amaze, while less superior cuts somehow "lose their luster" because the owner knows in the back of their mind that they cheaped out on cut.

In those meetings, are there certain things customers notice that they see are different between ACA and ES? If they do notice a difference, is it specific or is it just a "This one seems more sparkly" type of response? I ask because I really am interested what is drawing people to the top cut stones over very well cut second tier stones.

This is a very hard question to answer for several reasons. Chief among them is that most consumers may not know exactly what it is that is drawing them to one stone over another. Many times they will be comparing stones that are the same price but have different attributes, trying to balance their particular matrix of factors. In many cases they do choose an ES over an ACA to get a bit more size or a higher color or clarity. They also may have learned something about super ideals in their research and the appeal of knowing that the most important C is world-class, may bias their perception. And again, I think that calculation has alot of merit.

This is in line with what I expected to hear. I imagine it is hard for the average consumer to be able to explain what they are seeing as differences; one because it is hard to pinpoint exactly what the difference is and two because they don't have the diamond vocab to even explain the difference that they see. Also, I think it is important what you said about bias having an effect. That is why I think it is imperative for consumers on forums to get a balanced perspective. If they are constantly told that sacrifices in cut are highly risky, the chance that they will gravitate towards only the superideals becomes greater. They picture in their minds a lifeless diamond next to an incredible diamond, when that is far from the truth. A lot of people who come here are average consumers, many of which would be happy with a chain store, ungraded stone. Yet here, they are often told that anything that doesn't fall into strict ideal proportions with all the images to support perfect light return can't be assumed to be beautiful. Hence they play it safe and go straight to the "best" so as to take all risk out of the equation. These are often the only stones that have all the information they are told they need in order to know what they are getting in terms of quality. This often means making sacrifices to things that they very well may have easily seen, whether that be a noticeably larger diamond or a difference in color.

In regards to H&A, I have a general question as well. Is it really important to have the perfectly formed, textbook hearts and arrows from a performance standpoint? If a diamond is cut extremely well with a very high level of precision and 80% LGF, it will never be considered by purists to be true H&A because the clefts will be introduced in the hearts. Likewise, if the cutter were to cut the LGF to 75%, the hearts and V's will begin to blend together, ruining the H&A pattern. Still, the diamond is cut with precise optical symmetry, but not to the numbers to produce the feel good H&A pattern. Is it worth it for a consumer to spend a premium to get the diamond with the pretty pattern when the next stone might be cut with a great deal of precision but to proportions that won't be lead to perfect H&A and therefore carry less of a premium?

The H&A pattern is a visual confirmation of faceting precision. There is still taste to consider and someone may prefer longer LGFs or shorter ones, a slightly more splintery pattern or bold flashy patterns. We have a very narrow range of proportion factors that we use as guidelines for A CUT ABOVE that are at the heart of AGS Ideal (the details of which we publish). When precisely crafted to those proportions the hearts pattern will be very consistent and will not show much in the way of clefting. Precision alone is not what makes a superideal. Planning and design tranlsate into proportions which are also critical for optimal performance.

TL, based on the last couple sentences here are you saying that the proportions of a superideal stone are the optimal proportions for diamond performance? For example, I know that the limits for LGF on an ACA are 76-80%. Is this because numbers below 76% or above 80% translate to suboptimal performance? If so, how is that decrease in performance measured and consequently deemed suboptimal? Are the proportions that you use to qualify stones for ACA proven to give optimal, measurable performance increases over ES or PS stones? Or are these just the proportions needed to achieve the pattern of perfect H&A? Stones with 75% LGF or 81% LGF can still produce a beautiful diamond scoring 0 in light performance with a great ASET image can't they? How is it that these can be considered suboptimal when compared to an ACA?

Sorry for all of the questions, though I think you already know that I like to ask lots of them. Just trying to gain some insight from someone with a lot of experience to share. Thanks!

Pfunk,
Good questions all, and that is really what this forum is all about. We all share what we know, what we don't know, and what we think we know but don't! By having good discussion with a variety of view points represented, visitors to the forum can better reach good decisions about the diamonds that are right for them.
For the sake of clarity I have embedded my responses above in blue.

TL, I know you are busy and I appreciate you taking time out of your day to address my questions and share your knowledge with the community. It is something you don't have to do, but it is appreciated by myself and others I am sure. Making yourself so available is certainly a great asset and should be very reassuring for your customers and prospective customers.

Pfunk,
You go to great lengths to justify recommending “second tier stones” (your words) from virtual inventories sold by companies that have no direct knowledge of the diamond they are offering until after they sell it and bring it in from overseas. Your argument that diamonds marketed in this way are cheaper cannot be denied and the potential savings is compelling to some folks. You are perfectly entitled to whatever viewpoint seems right to you, and even to actively campaign around your position. I am sure it makes sense to many shoppers.

However, in your enthusiasm to push this argument it is necessary for you to minimize some of the value associated with diamonds cut to the highest standards, the value provided by vendors who invest in the diamonds and have them in hand, that offer diamonds that have undergone thorough review and are presented with verifiable light performance images, that include various additional benefits, that are provided by companies with a proven reputation for a high level of customer satisfaction, and that customers can even come see in real life before deciding. There is significant value in that overall value proposition that also resonates with many buyers. It obviously costs more to offer diamonds in this way, so a premium is both expected and earned. Many folks coming to this forum for advice are shopping for an engagement ring – an extremely important emotional and symbolic purchase, and one that is enjoyed every day, and has a very long time horizon. Everyone is looking for value, but lowest price is not the only consideration by any means.

As I said earlier, our company offers a variety of well cut diamonds in addition to our super ideals. We recognize that there are a variety of tastes and budgets in the market and supplies of precision cut diamonds are limited. We are not dictating to anyone what kind of diamond they should buy. But we are doing our best to offer a selection of some of the finest cut diamonds in the world for those shoppers who are interested in them, along with an assurance package that gives the kind of peace of mind that is sought after for purchases of this nature.

The fact that some aspects of quality at the upper end are subtle does not mean they don’t matter, even to young people who have never owned a diamond and have yet to develop their eye. I am a fan of music but I don’t consider myself an audiophile. However, when I buy a piece of equipment I like to get the best acoustics I can because I want to know the music will be as good as it can be.

 

[pfunk]

Pfunk,
You go to great lengths to justify recommending “second tier stones” (your words) from virtual inventories sold by companies that have no direct knowledge of the diamond they are offering until after they sell it and bring it in from overseas. Your argument that diamonds marketed in this way are cheaper cannot be denied and the potential savings is compelling to some folks. You are perfectly entitled to whatever viewpoint seems right to you, and even to actively campaign around your position. I am sure it makes sense to many shoppers.

However, in your enthusiasm to push this argument it is necessary for you to minimize some of the value associated with diamonds cut to the highest standards, the value provided by vendors who invest in the diamonds and have them in hand, that offer diamonds that have undergone thorough review and are presented with verifiable light performance images, that include various additional benefits, that are provided by companies with a proven reputation for a high level of customer satisfaction, and that customers can even come see in real life before deciding. There is significant value in that overall value proposition that also resonates with many buyers. It obviously costs more to offer diamonds in this way, so a premium is both expected and earned. Many folks coming to this forum for advice are shopping for an engagement ring – an extremely important emotional and symbolic purchase, and one that is enjoyed every day, and has a very long time horizon. Everyone is looking for value, but lowest price is not the only consideration by any means.

As I said earlier, our company offers a variety of well cut diamonds in addition to our super ideals. We recognize that there are a variety of tastes and budgets in the market and supplies of precision cut diamonds are limited. We are not dictating to anyone what kind of diamond they should buy. But we are doing our best to offer a selection of some of the finest cut diamonds in the world for those shoppers who are interested in them, along with an assurance package that gives the kind of peace of mind that is sought after for purchases of this nature.

The fact that some aspects of quality at the upper end are subtle does not mean they don’t matter, even to young people who have never owned a diamond and have yet to develop their eye. I am a fan of music but I don’t consider myself an audiophile. However, when I buy a piece of equipment I like to get the best acoustics I can because I want to know the music will be as good as it can be.

TL,
I am not going to any great lengths to justify recommending any certain stones, nor am I trying to debate a superior business model. I am simply trying to figure out what visual advantage a superideal stone has over another well cut ideal stone and if that difference is measurable or quantifiable. I think that it should be clear to consumers what they stand to gain when going from a well cut ideal stone to a superideal stone, just as it is made clear what they stand to gain when going from vvs2 to vs1 to a vs2. It is easy for folks here to recommend a sacrifice in color or clarity but rarely is cut ever an area to skimp on. I understand the apprehension to recommend a "lesser cut", but if the difference is subtle enough to not even be noticed by some, that should be known to others who plan to buy sight unseen. On the contrary, I feel that in many instances here on PS, the performance gain (read as "beauty gain" to average consumers) is made out to be large, even if only a small increase in cut quality. Likewise, the drop in performance is made to sound large if a small compromise is made to cut quality.

Look at this thread. The poster asks what difference there is and the result is a smattering of superideal stone recommendations from a variety of vendors who specialize in superideal stones. No one tries to answer what those differences may be that the OP is inquiring about. No one posts a video like this one, that shows how similar they might expect them to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxVfKUJsRZY


This is the reason for my questions on the ACA range of proportions. I imagine it must have been chosen for a reason and your explanation seems to suggest it is for optimal performance as you state, " Precision alone is not what makes a superideal. Planning and design translate into proportions which are also critical for optimal performance". I am guessing that the proportions you feel lead to optimal performance are those chosen for your top of the line cut, the ACA. One would assume then, that the wider proportion sets allowed for ES or PS may lead to suboptimal performance. Is there an objective measurement that sets ACA stones above from other AGS 000 stones in terms of performance?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Pfunk,
You go to great lengths to justify recommending “second tier stones” (your words) from virtual inventories sold by companies that have no direct knowledge of the diamond they are offering until after they sell it and bring it in from overseas. Your argument that diamonds marketed in this way are cheaper cannot be denied and the potential savings is compelling to some folks. You are perfectly entitled to whatever viewpoint seems right to you, and even to actively campaign around your position. I am sure it makes sense to many shoppers.

However, in your enthusiasm to push this argument it is necessary for you to minimize some of the value associated with diamonds cut to the highest standards, the value provided by vendors who invest in the diamonds and have them in hand, that offer diamonds that have undergone thorough review and are presented with verifiable light performance images, that include various additional benefits, that are provided by companies with a proven reputation for a high level of customer satisfaction, and that customers can even come see in real life before deciding. There is significant value in that overall value proposition that also resonates with many buyers. It obviously costs more to offer diamonds in this way, so a premium is both expected and earned. Many folks coming to this forum for advice are shopping for an engagement ring – an extremely important emotional and symbolic purchase, and one that is enjoyed every day, and has a very long time horizon. Everyone is looking for value, but lowest price is not the only consideration by any means.

As I said earlier, our company offers a variety of well cut diamonds in addition to our super ideals. We recognize that there are a variety of tastes and budgets in the market and supplies of precision cut diamonds are limited. We are not dictating to anyone what kind of diamond they should buy. But we are doing our best to offer a selection of some of the finest cut diamonds in the world for those shoppers who are interested in them, along with an assurance package that gives the kind of peace of mind that is sought after for purchases of this nature.

The fact that some aspects of quality at the upper end are subtle does not mean they don’t matter, even to young people who have never owned a diamond and have yet to develop their eye. I am a fan of music but I don’t consider myself an audiophile. However, when I buy a piece of equipment I like to get the best acoustics I can because I want to know the music will be as good as it can be.

TL,
I am not going to any great lengths to justify recommending any certain stones, nor am I trying to debate a superior business model. I am simply trying to figure out what visual advantage a superideal stone has over another well cut ideal stone and if that difference is measurable or quantifiable. I think that it should be clear to consumers what they stand to gain when going from a well cut ideal stone to a superideal stone, just as it is made clear what they stand to gain when going from vvs2 to vs1 to a vs2. It is easy for folks here to recommend a sacrifice in color or clarity but rarely is cut ever an area to skimp on. I understand the apprehension to recommend a "lesser cut", but if the difference is subtle enough to not even be noticed by some, that should be known to others who plan to buy sight unseen. On the contrary, I feel that in many instances here on PS, the performance gain (read as "beauty gain" to average consumers) is made out to be large, even if only a small increase in cut quality. Likewise, the drop in performance is made to sound large if a small compromise is made to cut quality.

Look at this thread. The poster asks what difference there is and the result is a smattering of superideal stone recommendations from a variety of vendors who specialize in superideal stones. No one tries to answer what those differences may be that the OP is inquiring about. No one posts a video like this one, that shows how similar they might expect them to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxVfKUJsRZY


This is the reason for my questions on the ACA range of proportions. I imagine it must have been chosen for a reason and your explanation seems to suggest it is for optimal performance as you state, " Precision alone is not what makes a superideal. Planning and design translate into proportions which are also critical for optimal performance". I am guessing that the proportions you feel lead to optimal performance are those chosen for your top of the line cut, the ACA. One would assume then, that the wider proportion sets allowed for ES or PS may lead to suboptimal performance. Is there an objective measurement that sets ACA stones above from other AGS 000 stones in terms of performance?

Pfunk, since I have already given you my perspective on the first part of your post earlier in the thread I see no point in trying to rehash that. But since you bring ACA into the discussion I can best respond to your last paragraph this way:

The cutting guidelines originally developed for A CUT ABOVE rounds are the same ones that our cutters aim for today. They were developed prior the AGS light performance grading system as parameters that would capture the sweet spot of performance with the optimal balance of fire, brightness and scintillation. The subsequent years of scientific research that AGS conducted which culminated in their new LP grading system confirmed that this design delivers light performance at the top of the scale.

When cut with precision these parameters yield diamonds of extraordinary beauty- consistently and dependably. This is one of the key reasons that they are sought after by online buyers in far away places. Being at center of the AGS Ideal range, considering AGS is the strictest cut standard that exists, they likely will always be at the top of any cut grading standard that may be devised in the future.

Can diamonds cut to a lesser standard still be beautiful and worth owning. Of course. That in no way negates the considerable benefits of owning a super ideal.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

To be fair, the OP specifically asked for H&A stones and asked about differences between vendors who carry them. If he wanted H&A, ED would not be on the list because they do not carry them. I realize that maybe he didn't really mean H&A, but that is what he said in the title and first post. So that is why I answered and said all the true H&A dealers are great, and a few of us recommended some stones.

 

[pfunk]

Pfunk,
You go to great lengths to justify recommending “second tier stones” (your words) from virtual inventories sold by companies that have no direct knowledge of the diamond they are offering until after they sell it and bring it in from overseas. Your argument that diamonds marketed in this way are cheaper cannot be denied and the potential savings is compelling to some folks. You are perfectly entitled to whatever viewpoint seems right to you, and even to actively campaign around your position. I am sure it makes sense to many shoppers.

However, in your enthusiasm to push this argument it is necessary for you to minimize some of the value associated with diamonds cut to the highest standards, the value provided by vendors who invest in the diamonds and have them in hand, that offer diamonds that have undergone thorough review and are presented with verifiable light performance images, that include various additional benefits, that are provided by companies with a proven reputation for a high level of customer satisfaction, and that customers can even come see in real life before deciding. There is significant value in that overall value proposition that also resonates with many buyers. It obviously costs more to offer diamonds in this way, so a premium is both expected and earned. Many folks coming to this forum for advice are shopping for an engagement ring – an extremely important emotional and symbolic purchase, and one that is enjoyed every day, and has a very long time horizon. Everyone is looking for value, but lowest price is not the only consideration by any means.

As I said earlier, our company offers a variety of well cut diamonds in addition to our super ideals. We recognize that there are a variety of tastes and budgets in the market and supplies of precision cut diamonds are limited. We are not dictating to anyone what kind of diamond they should buy. But we are doing our best to offer a selection of some of the finest cut diamonds in the world for those shoppers who are interested in them, along with an assurance package that gives the kind of peace of mind that is sought after for purchases of this nature.

The fact that some aspects of quality at the upper end are subtle does not mean they don’t matter, even to young people who have never owned a diamond and have yet to develop their eye. I am a fan of music but I don’t consider myself an audiophile. However, when I buy a piece of equipment I like to get the best acoustics I can because I want to know the music will be as good as it can be.

TL,
I am not going to any great lengths to justify recommending any certain stones, nor am I trying to debate a superior business model. I am simply trying to figure out what visual advantage a superideal stone has over another well cut ideal stone and if that difference is measurable or quantifiable. I think that it should be clear to consumers what they stand to gain when going from a well cut ideal stone to a superideal stone, just as it is made clear what they stand to gain when going from vvs2 to vs1 to a vs2. It is easy for folks here to recommend a sacrifice in color or clarity but rarely is cut ever an area to skimp on. I understand the apprehension to recommend a "lesser cut", but if the difference is subtle enough to not even be noticed by some, that should be known to others who plan to buy sight unseen. On the contrary, I feel that in many instances here on PS, the performance gain (read as "beauty gain" to average consumers) is made out to be large, even if only a small increase in cut quality. Likewise, the drop in performance is made to sound large if a small compromise is made to cut quality.

Look at this thread. The poster asks what difference there is and the result is a smattering of superideal stone recommendations from a variety of vendors who specialize in superideal stones. No one tries to answer what those differences may be that the OP is inquiring about. No one posts a video like this one, that shows how similar they might expect them to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxVfKUJsRZY


This is the reason for my questions on the ACA range of proportions. I imagine it must have been chosen for a reason and your explanation seems to suggest it is for optimal performance as you state, " Precision alone is not what makes a superideal. Planning and design translate into proportions which are also critical for optimal performance". I am guessing that the proportions you feel lead to optimal performance are those chosen for your top of the line cut, the ACA. One would assume then, that the wider proportion sets allowed for ES or PS may lead to suboptimal performance. Is there an objective measurement that sets ACA stones above from other AGS 000 stones in terms of performance?

Pfunk, since I have already given you my perspective on the first part of your post earlier in the thread I see no point in trying to rehash that. But since you bring ACA into the discussion I can best respond to your last paragraph this way:

The cutting guidelines originally developed for A CUT ABOVE rounds are the same ones that our cutters aim for today. They were developed prior the AGS light performance grading system as parameters that would capture the sweet spot of performance with the optimal balance of fire, brightness and scintillation. The subsequent years of scientific research that AGS conducted which culminated in their new LP grading system confirmed that this design delivers light performance at the top of the scale.

When cut with precision these parameters yield diamonds of extraordinary beauty- consistently and dependably. This is one of the key reasons that they are sought after by online buyers in far away places. Being at center of the AGS Ideal range, considering AGS is the strictest cut standard that exists, they likely will always be at the top of any cut grading standard that may be devised in the future.

Can diamonds cut to a lesser standard still be beautiful and worth owning. Of course. That in no way negates the considerable benefits of owning a super ideal.

I am not questioning the precision of the cut or the beauty that results from it. The question that I am asking remains unanswered. Is there an objective measure that shows an ACA or any other branded superideal is superior to another AGS 000? Is there an objective measure that shows shows perfect optical symmetry leads to visual advantages above and beyond that of good optical symmetry?

 

[pfunk]

To be fair, the OP specifically asked for H&A stones and asked about differences between vendors who carry them. If he wanted H&A, ED would not be on the list because they do not carry them. I realize that maybe he didn't really mean H&A, but that is what he said in the title and first post. So that is why I answered and said all the true H&A dealers are great, and a few of us recommended some stones.

DS, you are correct. I agree that he was specifically asking the difference between hearts and arrows from different vendors; but he did specifically ask what the difference would be when compared to the enchanted stone, which would not be considered perfect H&A. My issue is that as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) we can't measure or quantify the difference of a perfect H&A stone from a near H&A stone. Surely we know the proportions to which a stone must be cut to get the perfect H&A pattern, but how can we say that pattern actually leads to differences that people are going to see? Are these differences measurable? Objective? Subjective? Do clefts in hearts/different sized hearts/pointed shoulders/slightly misaligned arrows actually equate to performance defects or just a defect in the perfect heart image? Are the differences present and measurable, yet still allowed by AGS for fear of making the AGS 0 cut grade too harc to achieve? Does anyone know of publications relating measured performance to the hearts and arrows pattern? If such literature exists, is there a definition for the hearts and arrows pattern?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I am sure you know that I can't answer that question because I believe Bryan has already done his best at doing so. I haven't had the opportunity to look at a tray of diamonds to be able to tell you if I could pick out the H&A diamonds from regular excellent cut diamonds, but I have owned both and do prefer my H&A stones. Maybe one day I'll visit one of the vendors and see how well I can do! The bottom line is...I believe that for people who want to order a great diamond and are buying over the internet, the H&A stones are the safest if they are in budget. Buying highest quality costs a little more, and some people are willing to pay for it. I find it tedious to wade through the vendors with virtual listings which offer maybe a photo of the stone and nothing else on many of them. I cannot in good conscience recommend ED at this point. They have made more questionable comments in the past day or so.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I am not questioning the precision of the cut or the beauty that results from it. The question that I am asking remains unanswered. Is there an objective measure that shows an ACA or any other branded superideal is superior to another AGS 000? Is there an objective measure that shows shows perfect optical symmetry leads to visual advantages above and beyond that of good optical symmetry?

Pfunk,

I am sorry but you asking for an objective measure seems to indicate that you consider all reports by both consumers as well as professionals on how they observe the differences as subjective, even dishonest. Please confirm to me that I am misreading this and that you do acknowledge these testimonies.

Your point hinges on a small 'extra' in cut-quality not possibly causing big differences in observation, based on a so-called law of diminishing returns. However, these subtle differences mean something to many people, in fact they can mean everything, even if personally settle for less.

Let us take a measurable case. If you looked at photos and measurements of Usain Bolt and Yohan Blake would you see a difference? Maybe, but you might have to be told what to look for, and the differences will be subtle. But performing in the 2012 Olympic 200meter Sprint Bolt exceeded Blake by 0.12 seconds, with the added feature that Bolt seemed to win at-ease. That difference was indeed subtle, 0.12 seconds translates to 0.6% slower, but it's still a tangible difference. Then consider Christophe Lemaitre finishing 6th, just 4.5% slower. Now, you cannot say that Lemaitre is an under-performing athlete, can you? Still, in performance terms this was a huge difference.

Not to mention the fine athletes who did not even make it to the finals. Hey, I dare you to compare their pictures and measurements and try telling me who is going to make it to the finals, who not, and who will go home with the medals.

The law of diminishing returns which you seem to advocate above is incorrect. A diamond is like an athlete. Every athlete can decide for himself what effort-level is suitable for him, and many will be content to participate in the Olympics, others will only be satisfied with a place in the finals, and some only content themselves with gold. For each of them, that is a personal decision, leading to a certain level of accomplishment. But you cannot say that the little extra effort to obtain gold is not worth it. It may not be set out for everyone, but there certainly is no law of diminishing returns.

Furthermore, Bolt is a brand, whose name and accomplishments you will remember and enjoy 30 years from now. Do you still remember Yohan Blake or Christophe Lemaitre? Not to mention if you still enjoy the races you saw them in?

If you are not familiar with Usain Bolt, please look up this race on Youtube. Then, I would suggest you going to the trouble of actually going to see a true super-ideal diamond somewhere. On Youtube, you will see Bolt performing once. In the store, you will see the diamond performing once. Then go and check out other races of Bolt, many of them even more impressive than the first one. Then consider how that diamond is going to surprise you again and again over-time.

The performances of Bolt did not come about by accident, nor is a diamond's performance. I am pretty sure that you cannot find an athlete performing like Bolt, simply on data- and photo-analysis, and you could probably argue that there is no objective reason to expect an athlete-of-your-choice, found in this way, to be less performing than Bolt. Does that make your argument correct? I fear not, based upon years of experience in turning athletes with potential into Usain Bolts.

Live long,

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Pfunk,
You go to great lengths to justify recommending “second tier stones” (your words) from virtual inventories sold by companies that have no direct knowledge of the diamond they are offering until after they sell it and bring it in from overseas. Your argument that diamonds marketed in this way are cheaper cannot be denied and the potential savings is compelling to some folks. You are perfectly entitled to whatever viewpoint seems right to you, and even to actively campaign around your position. I am sure it makes sense to many shoppers.

However, in your enthusiasm to push this argument it is necessary for you to minimize some of the value associated with diamonds cut to the highest standards, the value provided by vendors who invest in the diamonds and have them in hand, that offer diamonds that have undergone thorough review and are presented with verifiable light performance images, that include various additional benefits, that are provided by companies with a proven reputation for a high level of customer satisfaction, and that customers can even come see in real life before deciding. There is significant value in that overall value proposition that also resonates with many buyers. It obviously costs more to offer diamonds in this way, so a premium is both expected and earned. Many folks coming to this forum for advice are shopping for an engagement ring – an extremely important emotional and symbolic purchase, and one that is enjoyed every day, and has a very long time horizon. Everyone is looking for value, but lowest price is not the only consideration by any means.

As I said earlier, our company offers a variety of well cut diamonds in addition to our super ideals. We recognize that there are a variety of tastes and budgets in the market and supplies of precision cut diamonds are limited. We are not dictating to anyone what kind of diamond they should buy. But we are doing our best to offer a selection of some of the finest cut diamonds in the world for those shoppers who are interested in them, along with an assurance package that gives the kind of peace of mind that is sought after for purchases of this nature.

The fact that some aspects of quality at the upper end are subtle does not mean they don’t matter, even to young people who have never owned a diamond and have yet to develop their eye. I am a fan of music but I don’t consider myself an audiophile. However, when I buy a piece of equipment I like to get the best acoustics I can because I want to know the music will be as good as it can be.

TL,
I am not going to any great lengths to justify recommending any certain stones, nor am I trying to debate a superior business model. I am simply trying to figure out what visual advantage a superideal stone has over another well cut ideal stone and if that difference is measurable or quantifiable. I think that it should be clear to consumers what they stand to gain when going from a well cut ideal stone to a superideal stone, just as it is made clear what they stand to gain when going from vvs2 to vs1 to a vs2. It is easy for folks here to recommend a sacrifice in color or clarity but rarely is cut ever an area to skimp on. I understand the apprehension to recommend a "lesser cut", but if the difference is subtle enough to not even be noticed by some, that should be known to others who plan to buy sight unseen. On the contrary, I feel that in many instances here on PS, the performance gain (read as "beauty gain" to average consumers) is made out to be large, even if only a small increase in cut quality. Likewise, the drop in performance is made to sound large if a small compromise is made to cut quality.

Look at this thread. The poster asks what difference there is and the result is a smattering of superideal stone recommendations from a variety of vendors who specialize in superideal stones. No one tries to answer what those differences may be that the OP is inquiring about. No one posts a video like this one, that shows how similar they might expect them to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxVfKUJsRZY


This is the reason for my questions on the ACA range of proportions. I imagine it must have been chosen for a reason and your explanation seems to suggest it is for optimal performance as you state, " Precision alone is not what makes a superideal. Planning and design translate into proportions which are also critical for optimal performance". I am guessing that the proportions you feel lead to optimal performance are those chosen for your top of the line cut, the ACA. One would assume then, that the wider proportion sets allowed for ES or PS may lead to suboptimal performance. Is there an objective measurement that sets ACA stones above from other AGS 000 stones in terms of performance?

Pfunk, since I have already given you my perspective on the first part of your post earlier in the thread I see no point in trying to rehash that. But since you bring ACA into the discussion I can best respond to your last paragraph this way:

The cutting guidelines originally developed for A CUT ABOVE rounds are the same ones that our cutters aim for today. They were developed prior the AGS light performance grading system as parameters that would capture the sweet spot of performance with the optimal balance of fire, brightness and scintillation. The subsequent years of scientific research that AGS conducted which culminated in their new LP grading system confirmed that this design delivers light performance at the top of the scale.

When cut with precision these parameters yield diamonds of extraordinary beauty- consistently and dependably. This is one of the key reasons that they are sought after by online buyers in far away places. Being at center of the AGS Ideal range, considering AGS is the strictest cut standard that exists, they likely will always be at the top of any cut grading standard that may be devised in the future.

Can diamonds cut to a lesser standard still be beautiful and worth owning. Of course. That in no way negates the considerable benefits of owning a super ideal.

I am not questioning the precision of the cut or the beauty that results from it. The question that I am asking remains unanswered. Is there an objective measure that shows an ACA or any other branded superideal is superior to another AGS 000? Is there an objective measure that shows perfect optical symmetry leads to visual advantages above and beyond that of good optical symmetry?

Yes, there are objective measures. It is known that 'where the rubber meets the road' in terms of light performance is at the virtual facet level. Precision cutting optimizes the virtual facet sizes and distribution for the particular design. With simple tools that folks are using here every day we can evaluate the level of cut quality, and with more sophisticated tools we can quantify them.

In fact, something to consider in your ongoing discussion of diminishing returns is this; you can take a consumer with no prior experience and in 5 minutes they can learn to use Ideal Scope and ASET to understand fine cutting details about their diamond. Take the same person and give them a microscope and a VVS diamond and they are likely never to be able to positively identify that pinpoint making the grade.

The point being that tradeoffs at the top of color and clarity are alot more logical than tradeoffs in cutting precision which we understand to be the key quality factor affecting light performance. And yet there are many people who desire to own diamonds of elite color and clarity even though differences are very subtle and premiums are paid. Some folks want it all - elite color, clarity and cut (and who can blame them!). Value shoppers typically make tradeoffs first for those things you cannot see and that have no bearing on light performance, and compromises to cut quality only as a last resort. It is a logical and smart approach to diamond buying.

 

[pfunk]

I am not questioning the precision of the cut or the beauty that results from it. The question that I am asking remains unanswered. Is there an objective measure that shows an ACA or any other branded superideal is superior to another AGS 000? Is there an objective measure that shows shows perfect optical symmetry leads to visual advantages above and beyond that of good optical symmetry?

Pfunk,

I am sorry but you asking for an objective measure seems to indicate that you consider all reports by both consumers as well as professionals on how they observe the differences as subjective, even dishonest. Please confirm to me that I am misreading this and that you do acknowledge these testimonies.

Your point hinges on a small 'extra' in cut-quality not possibly causing big differences in observation, based on a so-called law of diminishing returns. However, these subtle differences mean something to many people, in fact they can mean everything, even if personally settle for less.

Let us take a measurable case. If you looked at photos and measurements of Usain Bolt and Yohan Blake would you see a difference? Maybe, but you might have to be told what to look for, and the differences will be subtle. But performing in the 2012 Olympic 200meter Sprint Bolt exceeded Blake by 0.12 seconds, with the added feature that Bolt seemed to win at-ease. That difference was indeed subtle, 0.12 seconds translates to 0.6% slower, but it's still a tangible difference. Then consider Christophe Lemaitre finishing 6th, just 4.5% slower. Now, you cannot say that Lemaitre is an under-performing athlete, can you? Still, in performance terms this was a huge difference.

Not to mention the fine athletes who did not even make it to the finals. Hey, I dare you to compare their pictures and measurements and try telling me who is going to make it to the finals, who not, and who will go home with the medals.

The law of diminishing returns which you seem to advocate above is incorrect. A diamond is like an athlete. Every athlete can decide for himself what effort-level is suitable for him, and many will be content to participate in the Olympics, others will only be satisfied with a place in the finals, and some only content themselves with gold. For each of them, that is a personal decision, leading to a certain level of accomplishment. But you cannot say that the little extra effort to obtain gold is not worth it. It may not be set out for everyone, but there certainly is no law of diminishing returns.

Furthermore, Bolt is a brand, whose name and accomplishments you will remember and enjoy 30 years from now. Do you still remember Yohan Blake or Christophe Lemaitre? Not to mention if you still enjoy the races you saw them in?

If you are not familiar with Usain Bolt, please look up this race on Youtube. Then, I would suggest you going to the trouble of actually going to see a true super-ideal diamond somewhere. On Youtube, you will see Bolt performing once. In the store, you will see the diamond performing once. Then go and check out other races of Bolt, many of them even more impressive than the first one. Then consider how that diamond is going to surprise you again and again over-time.

The performances of Bolt did not come about by accident, nor is a diamond's performance. I am pretty sure that you cannot find an athlete performing like Bolt, simply on data- and photo-analysis, and you could probably argue that there is no objective reason to expect an athlete-of-your-choice, found in this way, to be less performing than Bolt. Does that make your argument correct? I fear not, based upon years of experience in turning athletes with potential into Usain Bolts.

Live long,

Paul,

Me asking for an objective measure is nothing more than that. I am simply asking if there is a metric that can be measured to assess the differences. Alternatively, I asked if there is published evidence that precision cutting resulting in the perfect hearts and arrows pattern leads to differences that have been in some way been measured or observed and documented? If so, are there stones that served as the controls (comparison) for such research, and in what ways were they shown to be inferior?

The subtle differences that are often times referenced... what are they and what are they caused by? From what I have read, optical symmetry increases virtual facet size (I believe Bryan may have pointed that out earlier) which can help with crisp scintillation events and a better chance at observing fire. Is that correct? Are these difference a product only of the precise optical symmetry that you see in perfect hearts and arrows? Meaning does a diamond with good optical symmetry, though maybe not perfect or maybe cut to proportions that don't allow the perfect h&a pattern, still result in visual improvements similar to those of perfect h&a. If the answer is no, I will continue to ask how that conslusion was drawn. Are the "subtle differences" able to be measured or is it simply something we can see but can not explain.

I'm not calling anybody dishonest, so please don't try to infer that is my objective here. The point that Bryan referred to is an important one though. He states, when speaking as to why some customers choose an ACA over an ES or PS stone, "They also may have learned something about super ideals in their research and the appeal of knowing that the most important C is world-class, may bias their perception." I am not sure how HOF or any other dealer of superideals presents their "top of the line" model, but I would venture to say it is likely made quite clear that it is the best of the best. They aren't simply showing stones to customers without telling them which is which. When you tell someone they are buying the very best their money can buy, that in an of itself has power to make them feel like there is a black and white difference that sets it apart from all others.

As a pharmacist, I understand the power of the placebo effect and power of suggestion. That is why it is my job to look at the drug studies which helped bring a medication to market in order to best help educate my patients as to the cost/benefit tradeoff for any particular medication they may consider taking. Drug companies are great at presenting the evidence that helps move their medicine. This is why it is imperative to look closely at the endpoints and consider why they may have chosen those clinical endpoints.

As for your analogy, I have to say I don't quite understand it. Bolt is impressive over and over again and wins races time after time because he is the best, and he proves it objectively. Even if he only wins by 0.01 seconds, it is a measurable gain. I'm not buying a runner. If I was betting on one though, I would put my money on the one that has proven to be better. And if he is winning by extremely small margins, you can bet even then I am not going to be betting much on him.

How can you say that the diminishing returns is incorrect? If the differences are so subtle that some people can't even see, then where is the additional value for those people? Is the value that someone else tells you it is the best possible, and you should therefore find personal value in the fuzzy feeling even if you can't see it?

 

[pfunk]

Pfunk,
You go to great lengths to justify recommending “second tier stones” (your words) from virtual inventories sold by companies that have no direct knowledge of the diamond they are offering until after they sell it and bring it in from overseas. Your argument that diamonds marketed in this way are cheaper cannot be denied and the potential savings is compelling to some folks. You are perfectly entitled to whatever viewpoint seems right to you, and even to actively campaign around your position. I am sure it makes sense to many shoppers.

However, in your enthusiasm to push this argument it is necessary for you to minimize some of the value associated with diamonds cut to the highest standards, the value provided by vendors who invest in the diamonds and have them in hand, that offer diamonds that have undergone thorough review and are presented with verifiable light performance images, that include various additional benefits, that are provided by companies with a proven reputation for a high level of customer satisfaction, and that customers can even come see in real life before deciding. There is significant value in that overall value proposition that also resonates with many buyers. It obviously costs more to offer diamonds in this way, so a premium is both expected and earned. Many folks coming to this forum for advice are shopping for an engagement ring – an extremely important emotional and symbolic purchase, and one that is enjoyed every day, and has a very long time horizon. Everyone is looking for value, but lowest price is not the only consideration by any means.

As I said earlier, our company offers a variety of well cut diamonds in addition to our super ideals. We recognize that there are a variety of tastes and budgets in the market and supplies of precision cut diamonds are limited. We are not dictating to anyone what kind of diamond they should buy. But we are doing our best to offer a selection of some of the finest cut diamonds in the world for those shoppers who are interested in them, along with an assurance package that gives the kind of peace of mind that is sought after for purchases of this nature.

The fact that some aspects of quality at the upper end are subtle does not mean they don’t matter, even to young people who have never owned a diamond and have yet to develop their eye. I am a fan of music but I don’t consider myself an audiophile. However, when I buy a piece of equipment I like to get the best acoustics I can because I want to know the music will be as good as it can be.

TL,
I am not going to any great lengths to justify recommending any certain stones, nor am I trying to debate a superior business model. I am simply trying to figure out what visual advantage a superideal stone has over another well cut ideal stone and if that difference is measurable or quantifiable. I think that it should be clear to consumers what they stand to gain when going from a well cut ideal stone to a superideal stone, just as it is made clear what they stand to gain when going from vvs2 to vs1 to a vs2. It is easy for folks here to recommend a sacrifice in color or clarity but rarely is cut ever an area to skimp on. I understand the apprehension to recommend a "lesser cut", but if the difference is subtle enough to not even be noticed by some, that should be known to others who plan to buy sight unseen. On the contrary, I feel that in many instances here on PS, the performance gain (read as "beauty gain" to average consumers) is made out to be large, even if only a small increase in cut quality. Likewise, the drop in performance is made to sound large if a small compromise is made to cut quality.

Look at this thread. The poster asks what difference there is and the result is a smattering of superideal stone recommendations from a variety of vendors who specialize in superideal stones. No one tries to answer what those differences may be that the OP is inquiring about. No one posts a video like this one, that shows how similar they might expect them to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxVfKUJsRZY


This is the reason for my questions on the ACA range of proportions. I imagine it must have been chosen for a reason and your explanation seems to suggest it is for optimal performance as you state, " Precision alone is not what makes a superideal. Planning and design translate into proportions which are also critical for optimal performance". I am guessing that the proportions you feel lead to optimal performance are those chosen for your top of the line cut, the ACA. One would assume then, that the wider proportion sets allowed for ES or PS may lead to suboptimal performance. Is there an objective measurement that sets ACA stones above from other AGS 000 stones in terms of performance?

Pfunk, since I have already given you my perspective on the first part of your post earlier in the thread I see no point in trying to rehash that. But since you bring ACA into the discussion I can best respond to your last paragraph this way:

The cutting guidelines originally developed for A CUT ABOVE rounds are the same ones that our cutters aim for today. They were developed prior the AGS light performance grading system as parameters that would capture the sweet spot of performance with the optimal balance of fire, brightness and scintillation. The subsequent years of scientific research that AGS conducted which culminated in their new LP grading system confirmed that this design delivers light performance at the top of the scale.

When cut with precision these parameters yield diamonds of extraordinary beauty- consistently and dependably. This is one of the key reasons that they are sought after by online buyers in far away places. Being at center of the AGS Ideal range, considering AGS is the strictest cut standard that exists, they likely will always be at the top of any cut grading standard that may be devised in the future.

Can diamonds cut to a lesser standard still be beautiful and worth owning. Of course. That in no way negates the considerable benefits of owning a super ideal.

I am not questioning the precision of the cut or the beauty that results from it. The question that I am asking remains unanswered. Is there an objective measure that shows an ACA or any other branded superideal is superior to another AGS 000? Is there an objective measure that shows perfect optical symmetry leads to visual advantages above and beyond that of good optical symmetry?

Yes, there are objective measures. It is known that 'where the rubber meets the road' in terms of light performance is at the virtual facet level. Precision cutting optimizes the virtual facet sizes and distribution for the particular design. With simple tools that folks are using here every day we can evaluate the level of cut quality, and with more sophisticated tools we can quantify them.

In fact, something to consider in your ongoing discussion of diminishing returns is this; you can take a consumer with no prior experience and in 5 minutes they can learn to use Ideal Scope and ASET to understand fine cutting details about their diamond. Take the same person and give them a microscope and a VVS diamond and they are likely never to be able to positively identify that pinpoint making the grade.

The point being that tradeoffs at the top of color and clarity are alot more logical than tradeoffs in cutting precision which we understand to be the key quality factor affecting light performance. And yet there are many people who desire to own diamonds of elite color and clarity even though differences are very subtle and premiums are paid. Some folks want it all - elite color, clarity and cut (and who can blame them!). Value shoppers typically make tradeoffs first for those things you cannot see and that have no bearing on light performance, and compromises to cut quality only as a last resort. It is a logical and smart approach to diamond buying.

Great! I'm glad to hear there are objective measures. What are those measurements and how does a superideal compare to another AGS 000 that may not have the same degree of optical symmetry?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Pfunk,
You go to great lengths to justify recommending “second tier stones” (your words) from virtual inventories sold by companies that have no direct knowledge of the diamond they are offering until after they sell it and bring it in from overseas. Your argument that diamonds marketed in this way are cheaper cannot be denied and the potential savings is compelling to some folks. You are perfectly entitled to whatever viewpoint seems right to you, and even to actively campaign around your position. I am sure it makes sense to many shoppers.

However, in your enthusiasm to push this argument it is necessary for you to minimize some of the value associated with diamonds cut to the highest standards, the value provided by vendors who invest in the diamonds and have them in hand, that offer diamonds that have undergone thorough review and are presented with verifiable light performance images, that include various additional benefits, that are provided by companies with a proven reputation for a high level of customer satisfaction, and that customers can even come see in real life before deciding. There is significant value in that overall value proposition that also resonates with many buyers. It obviously costs more to offer diamonds in this way, so a premium is both expected and earned. Many folks coming to this forum for advice are shopping for an engagement ring – an extremely important emotional and symbolic purchase, and one that is enjoyed every day, and has a very long time horizon. Everyone is looking for value, but lowest price is not the only consideration by any means.

As I said earlier, our company offers a variety of well cut diamonds in addition to our super ideals. We recognize that there are a variety of tastes and budgets in the market and supplies of precision cut diamonds are limited. We are not dictating to anyone what kind of diamond they should buy. But we are doing our best to offer a selection of some of the finest cut diamonds in the world for those shoppers who are interested in them, along with an assurance package that gives the kind of peace of mind that is sought after for purchases of this nature.

The fact that some aspects of quality at the upper end are subtle does not mean they don’t matter, even to young people who have never owned a diamond and have yet to develop their eye. I am a fan of music but I don’t consider myself an audiophile. However, when I buy a piece of equipment I like to get the best acoustics I can because I want to know the music will be as good as it can be.

TL,
I am not going to any great lengths to justify recommending any certain stones, nor am I trying to debate a superior business model. I am simply trying to figure out what visual advantage a superideal stone has over another well cut ideal stone and if that difference is measurable or quantifiable. I think that it should be clear to consumers what they stand to gain when going from a well cut ideal stone to a superideal stone, just as it is made clear what they stand to gain when going from vvs2 to vs1 to a vs2. It is easy for folks here to recommend a sacrifice in color or clarity but rarely is cut ever an area to skimp on. I understand the apprehension to recommend a "lesser cut", but if the difference is subtle enough to not even be noticed by some, that should be known to others who plan to buy sight unseen. On the contrary, I feel that in many instances here on PS, the performance gain (read as "beauty gain" to average consumers) is made out to be large, even if only a small increase in cut quality. Likewise, the drop in performance is made to sound large if a small compromise is made to cut quality.

Look at this thread. The poster asks what difference there is and the result is a smattering of superideal stone recommendations from a variety of vendors who specialize in superideal stones. No one tries to answer what those differences may be that the OP is inquiring about. No one posts a video like this one, that shows how similar they might expect them to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxVfKUJsRZY


This is the reason for my questions on the ACA range of proportions. I imagine it must have been chosen for a reason and your explanation seems to suggest it is for optimal performance as you state, " Precision alone is not what makes a superideal. Planning and design translate into proportions which are also critical for optimal performance". I am guessing that the proportions you feel lead to optimal performance are those chosen for your top of the line cut, the ACA. One would assume then, that the wider proportion sets allowed for ES or PS may lead to suboptimal performance. Is there an objective measurement that sets ACA stones above from other AGS 000 stones in terms of performance?

Pfunk, since I have already given you my perspective on the first part of your post earlier in the thread I see no point in trying to rehash that. But since you bring ACA into the discussion I can best respond to your last paragraph this way:

The cutting guidelines originally developed for A CUT ABOVE rounds are the same ones that our cutters aim for today. They were developed prior the AGS light performance grading system as parameters that would capture the sweet spot of performance with the optimal balance of fire, brightness and scintillation. The subsequent years of scientific research that AGS conducted which culminated in their new LP grading system confirmed that this design delivers light performance at the top of the scale.

When cut with precision these parameters yield diamonds of extraordinary beauty- consistently and dependably. This is one of the key reasons that they are sought after by online buyers in far away places. Being at center of the AGS Ideal range, considering AGS is the strictest cut standard that exists, they likely will always be at the top of any cut grading standard that may be devised in the future.

Can diamonds cut to a lesser standard still be beautiful and worth owning. Of course. That in no way negates the considerable benefits of owning a super ideal.

I am not questioning the precision of the cut or the beauty that results from it. The question that I am asking remains unanswered. Is there an objective measure that shows an ACA or any other branded superideal is superior to another AGS 000? Is there an objective measure that shows perfect optical symmetry leads to visual advantages above and beyond that of good optical symmetry?

Yes, there are objective measures. It is known that 'where the rubber meets the road' in terms of light performance is at the virtual facet level. Precision cutting optimizes the virtual facet sizes and distribution for the particular design. With simple tools that folks are using here every day we can evaluate the level of cut quality, and with more sophisticated tools we can quantify them.

In fact, something to consider in your ongoing discussion of diminishing returns is this; you can take a consumer with no prior experience and in 5 minutes they can learn to use Ideal Scope and ASET to understand fine cutting details about their diamond. Take the same person and give them a microscope and a VVS diamond and they are likely never to be able to positively identify that pinpoint making the grade.

The point being that tradeoffs at the top of color and clarity are alot more logical than tradeoffs in cutting precision which we understand to be the key quality factor affecting light performance. And yet there are many people who desire to own diamonds of elite color and clarity even though differences are very subtle and premiums are paid. Some folks want it all - elite color, clarity and cut (and who can blame them!). Value shoppers typically make tradeoffs first for those things you cannot see and that have no bearing on light performance, and compromises to cut quality only as a last resort. It is a logical and smart approach to diamond buying.

Great! I'm glad to hear there are objective measures. What are those measurements and how does a superideal compare to another AGS 000 that may not have the same degree of optical symmetry?

In our world a super ideal is a rather narrow subset of AGS Ideal. Objective measures of performance include such things as ASET, DiamCalc, VPA, Ideal Scope, H&A viewers and of course AGSL ray tracing. Our brand must first have a Triple 0 light performance certificate from AGSL. In addition to extremely high precision above and beyond what is required to get an AGS0 grade, we also vet our brand for things such as nicks, scratches, fluorescence and clarity features that impair light performance. You can find all details of the brand specifications and qualifications on our site. We are the only company that I know of that does this.

If you look carefully at diamonds in our three in-house categories you will see differences between AGS0's that don't make our super ideal brand and those that do. There is also content on the site explaining both the technical and practical differences and value propositions of each category.

As I have said earlier in the thread, we inventory these diamonds and we have a showroom where they are shown to consumers every day. The fact is that a high percentage of customers choose A CUT ABOVE when having the opportunity to compare them side by side to other diamonds. So there is also some objective evidence in the form of this ongoing survey that suggests that customers find them more appealing.

 

[pfunk]

Perhaps I haven't been specific enough to convey exactly what it is I am trying to ask. If so, I apologize. The thread started with the question of what the visual difference is between different H&A diamond brands, and when also taking the enchanted stone into consideration, near hearts and arrows. I'm trying to figure out whether there is a laboratory or device that is able to measure the differences in fire, scintillation, or brightness on some sort of standardized scale, and what the magnitude of those differences are if the perfect h&a symmetry is compromised.

I understand the tools that are used to assess light return, such as the ASET and idealscope. I have never seen the DiamCalc software used so I am not sure what kind of information that program is able to give as far as differences between two diamonds with respect to scintillation, fire, or brilliance. With this software, are you able to enter the information from a sarin scan for a given diamond and then produce scores for fire, brightness, scintillation, etc? If so, when comparing a stone with picture perfect hearts and arrows, does it score significantly higher in comparison to a stone with good, but not perfect h&a?

In a nut shell, is there a way to quantify the detrimental effect of sacrificing perfect h&a patterns in diamonds which are cut to AGS 000 performance? Does such a metric exist, or are we not there yet? Are we instead looking at them and seeing a difference but not yet able to measure that difference and assign values?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Pfunk,

Forgive me, but can we agree that when you are addressing my points specifically, that we stick to a comparison with CBI? CBI is not HOF, nor do I want to be thrown into the unclear definition of super-ideal, definitely not into the unclear definition of H&A. This is just for point-of-reference, though.

One remark of yours really made me chuckle, the one about the potential placebo-effect. In fact, you are advocating a totally different placebo-effect, the one of a lower dollar-figure connected to something that on paper is good enough.

You seem to be complaining that PS is far too cut-quality-centered, far beyond necessary, but the reality is that possibly less than 1% of independent retailers are going through the trouble of securing a supply of truly top-cut-diamonds and investing in that supply, just to be sure that they can offer it. Compare this to scores of jewelers, simply calling in (without any investment upfront) the cheapest GIA-EX they can find within their parameters, and either selling that or returning it. Compared to the very few customers who are presented with a true top-quality, there are hundreds of consumers presented with 'good enough' stones, and the placebo-effect of 'less dollars for supposedly the same'.

It is a far more difficult path for jewelers to go for the top-quality, still some do, with dedication and perseverance. You are describing them as taking the easy way, persuading the consumer into unnecessary spendings, while they are actually taking the hard road.

In reality, I still need to meet the consumer who did not see the difference between our product and something 'good enough'. That does not mean that all buy our product. Some cannot get past the placebo of a lower dollar-figure, which is their full right after having checked out all possibilities. I think that they are doing themselves a disfavor, but I respect their decision. You however have been invited to check out what we are talking about, still prefer to revert into general dismissal. That is a position hard to respect.

Live long,

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Its funny, I was just musing on this very topic myself recently. I chuckled when I thought about a stone that is ideal vs one that is super ideal, Someone ought to have come up with better description.( Sounds like new improved tide). Ideal really works for me. Just as I may never have a FL or D diamond I would be quite satisfied with an ideal diamond. I really believe that diamond can be beautiful.

I agree with PFunk. We Have many people who come on here with not that much money and why should they have to get the tippy tippy top of cut. I do listen to DS. She has helped me form what my standards are in a diamond. But I frankly, don't much care for the look of hearts and arrows, and would be just as satisfied with an ideal cut. Ideal is Ideal in my book.

PFunk, you can't win here. Its their livlihood and they will never agree with you. But I think you should recommend stones as you see fit. There are many beautiful diamonds in the world, and they are not all at the top.


Annette

 

[pfunk]

Pfunk,

Forgive me, but can we agree that when you are addressing my points specifically, that we stick to a comparison with CBI? CBI is not HOF, nor do I want to be thrown into the unclear definition of super-ideal, definitely not into the unclear definition of H&A. This is just for point-of-reference, though.

One remark of yours really made me chuckle, the one about the potential placebo-effect. In fact, you are advocating a totally different placebo-effect, the one of a lower dollar-figure connected to something that on paper is good enough.

You seem to be complaining that PS is far too cut-quality-centered, far beyond necessary, but the reality is that possibly less than 1% of independent retailers are going through the trouble of securing a supply of truly top-cut-diamonds and investing in that supply, just to be sure that they can offer it. Compare this to scores of jewelers, simply calling in (without any investment upfront) the cheapest GIA-EX they can find within their parameters, and either selling that or returning it. Compared to the very few customers who are presented with a true top-quality, there are hundreds of consumers presented with 'good enough' stones, and the placebo-effect of 'less dollars for supposedly the same'.

It is a far more difficult path for jewelers to go for the top-quality, still some do, with dedication and perseverance. You are describing them as taking the easy way, persuading the consumer into unnecessary spendings, while they are actually taking the hard road.

In reality, I still need to meet the consumer who did not see the difference between our product and something 'good enough'. That does not mean that all buy our product. Some cannot get past the placebo of a lower dollar-figure, which is their full right after having checked out all possibilities. I think that they are doing themselves a disfavor, but I respect their decision. You however have been invited to check out what we are talking about, still prefer to revert into general dismissal. That is a position hard to respect.

Live long,

Paul,

I am happy to go look at a diamond that you consider to be at the pinnacle of cut perfection. Just tell me where I have to go to find a stone that lives up to your standards in the twin cities area of Minnesota. I'd be happy to go look. In fact, I would love to be able to see what I am missing. Though at the end of the day, if I don't see a visible difference in the jewelry store, I would still be told I am missing out if I choose to purchase an "inferior cut". After all, the true differences can only be appreciated over a lifetime and in countless different lighting situations that I might encounter. Yet I, as the consumer, am still advised to spend the premium for something I might not find readily apparent just because it is at the pinnacle of cut; that I am doing myself a disfavor if I don't spend the extra money to get the very best.

I do look forward to going and looking, and hope there is a dealer near to me. I may sound like I won't give a superideal the time of day, but believe me, I will. And trust me, I am not too proud to admit when I am wrong, so if the superideal is indeed visually more appealing I will be sure to explain so. And I will try to do so as specifically as possible.

Having said that, it should be clear that I am not saying a superideal isn't any more appealing than a very well cut ideal stone. Having not done a side to side comparison I can not make that claim. This is precisely why I am asking for metrics that prove what consumers are being told here on this forum. Where is the research or the measured data that shows the advantage of perfect h&a over very good or even good h&a?

I'm not advocating anything of the such. I am making consumers aware of what they stand to gain if not getting a superideal. I'm making sure they are aware there is another side of the coin. That may mean money in their pocket, visually larger stone, better color, clarity, or a combination of any of those. If at the end of the day, they feel they'd rather spend the money on a superideal stone, great. Fine. I don't care either way and I won't tell them that they are doing themselves a disfavor. They knew their options, they weighed them, and they made a personal decision that is right for them. If they choose to go with a run of the mill ideal stone and don't find it beautiful, they can easily send it back and spend their money on a superideal. If they go the other route and buy the superideal stone and wait for themselves to be amazed over the weeks, months, years in an array of conditions... there is no getting their money back. Will they love the stone. Almost certainly they will. Would they have been just as happy with one that didn't carry the premium? Possibly. So they should have as much unbiased information as possible to best make that decision. That's what this forum is supposed to be all about anyhow.

I'll ask it again, as it keeps getting buried in the debate as to what is best for everyone... Are there measurements/metrics/devices/data/published articles that compare well cut, ideal stones with less than perfect h&a to those superideals with perfect h&a such as your CBI line?

 

[smitcompton]

Hi again,

I will tell of my experience last week when I found a cushion cut diamond I was interested in from a virtual inventory. 1.01 ctw, VSI, G color. I asked for an aset which they sent along with a picture of the actual diamond. The diamond had nice crisp facets(As thy say no mush) and the aset looked OK. The gemologist from oversees said it was a beautiful diamond. The GIA report showed a feather and so I hesitated ---cost 4,000.

I went to look on our PS vendors websites and was genuinely astonished at what the super ideal diamonds of that size cost. My most incredulous find was a 1.02 E vvsi from Brian Gavin came in over 16,000.00. I would have no trouble buying the beautiful non=ideal diamond, which I could return vs some super ideal diamond for an outrageous price. That is the truth that I was just thinking about all this.

Now, I would never recommend buying an i1 or even an si2 even if it was eye clean. But I am sure super ideal is not for me.

 

[pfunk]

Hi again,

I will tell of my experience last week when I found a cushion cut diamond I was interested in from a virtual inventory. 1.01 ctw, VSI, G color. I asked for an aset which they sent along with a picture of the actual diamond. The diamond had nice crisp facets(As thy say no mush) and the aset looked OK. The gemologist from oversees said it was a beautiful diamond. The GIA report showed a feather and so I hesitated ---cost 4,000.

I went to look on our PS vendors websites and was genuinely astonished at what the super ideal diamonds of that size cost. My most incredulous find was a 1.02 E vvsi from Brian Gavin came in over 16,000.00. I would have no trouble buying the beautiful non=ideal diamond, which I could return vs some super ideal diamond for an outrageous price. That is the truth that I was just thinking about all this.

Now, I would never recommend buying an i1 or even an si2 even if it was eye clean. But I am sure super ideal is not for me.

Sometimes, though not always, the premium for a superideal is quite large. But in addition to the cut improvements they also often come with other perks that certainly carry some value.

Since Paul is here and it may be of interest, the CBI diamond that most closely matches what I purchased is found here, in Wink's inventory:

http://highperformancediamonds.com/shop/clarity/HPD7134/

This diamond has the advantage of being VS1, versus VS2, and also has a larger diameter of 8.19 vs 8.06 (2.02 vs 2.01 carats), a number that I doubt I would notice visually, though perhaps I would. The price is 59% higher than what I paid for my stone. That equates to just over $8,100 extra. That is a very large amount of additional money to invest, which is why I feel it necessary to ask these questions if I am going to invest that kind of money sight unseen.

 

[MissGotRocks]

The difference in price between a VS1 and a VS2 - particularly in a 2 ct. stone - is significant. The difference in diameter between the CBI stone and your stone is quite telling. Your stone may be deeper or have more weight in the girdle. I don't know as I've never seen the specs of the stone you are purchasing. The fact that you may or may not notice the size difference is not the only litmus test for the difference in the two stones.

CBI does not cut thousands of stone per year. If you will go to their website and read about their cutting process - from procurement of a stone or rough to a finished product, you will see the expertise, time and planning that they put into a finished stone. While this level of precision may not be for all - and price being included in that choice - it is for some. Your efforts to quantify the difference between an ideal cut and a super ideal cut will always fall flat - beauty is in the eye of the beholder and purchaser. When people come here looking for the biggest, most sparkly diamond that they can find for their money, they will usually always be advised to go for the smaller, well cut stone. Finding a stone with color/clarity and size that they want is just the beginning and so often what they've found is a less than well cut stone. When other choices are presented, it is always up to the consumer to decide what is right for them. It's just that PS is a place to come for some education about diamonds and choices and they will usually be directed to stones and vendors that are a known source of very well cut stones. The 'most sparkly' stone won't be found among the mediocre.

I am happy for you that you have found a stone that you really like and that hits all of your important high spots. That makes for a very satisfied consumer and that's important. Asking questions of the experts in order to gain information and education is commendable. Asking questions in an effort to debunk what they know firsthand from many years of experience is questionable.