What''s the difference between Super Ideal & Ideal?

[snow_happy]

How can a buyer know the performance in the various light conditions if the stone is bought over the internet? Is it ok to ask the salesperson over the phone to test the diamond in different light conditions?

Thanks!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/13/2005 2:37:58 PM
Author: snow_happy
How can a buyer know the performance in the various light conditions if the stone is bought over the internet? Is it ok to ask the salesperson over the phone to test the diamond in different light conditions?


Thanks!

Yep :}
Also the data available can tell a lot about it.
Ideal scope will tell you if it has a lot of direct light return as well as contrast.
H&A photos can show optical symmetry which can lead to increased performance and a better balanced diamond.

B-scope if available measures direct light performance.
Indirect light photos can give you an idea of what the performance is as can the isee2 machine.
All the machines/tests/calculations have there place and their faults but taken together can paint a pretty good picture of what it will be like.
But a skilled trusted vendor acting as your eyes is still at the top of the list.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/13/2005 2:27

8 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
What if CZ outperformed diamond?

It would be interesting to see if there are some light conditions where cz would actualy out perform diamonds in one of the performance areas.

But if this is in reference to my light box it wouldnt matter because the goal is to show what the diamond in question looks like under various repeatable light conditions.
In other words its a presentation tool as I invision it.

edit: in light of winks post below I would change it too...

It would be interesting to see if there are some light conditions where cz would actualy out perform super-ideal diamonds in one of the performance areas.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 3/13/2005 2:27

8 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
What if CZ outperformed diamond?

Garry,

You and I both know that this is totally possible and in fact often occurs unless the diamond is very well cut. I have one of your comparrison sets, well actually four of them, that I use to show people the difference between well cut and (pejorative expletive deleted) cut. The better cut of the two stones is not even a Hearts and arrows cut CZ yet it out performs most diamonds that I see.

What I like about Storm Riders light box is that it is NOT an attempt to provide yet another machine that purports to measure performance, but rather a series of photos in varying light conditions that will show what that particular stone does in those conditions. I think it will be VERY informative in a visual way. Be interesting to see if it ever happens and what happens with the technology if it does.

Wink

P.S. I took a quick shot of Gary''s comparrison set, both are the equivalent of a 1ct diamond in weight. (Both stones weigh the same, 1.70cts which would be a 1ct weight if they were diamonds.)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Great demo Wink

And it does look just like that too folks.

But if you put that bad stone on a brilliancescope it will out perform most diamonds - go figure?

I still can not understand why they allow light to eneter the pavilion

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/13/2005 3:21:11 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 3/13/2005 2:40:59 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 3/10/2005 7:44:45 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
I use the term 'super ideal' on my appraisals when a round brilliant cut has:

1. An AGS 0 ranking
2. Hearts & Arrows optical symmetry
3. Excellent Idealscope image
4. Excellent DiamCalc numbers

If any one of these ingredients are missing I don't use the term 'super ideal'.

Not that I'm trying to promote any brand (especially one that I don't carry) but would you not consider an 8* a super ideal Rich?

Rhino
i have seen some 8* that isn't ex/ex on the gia cert,so would you still call these super ideal?

Hi DF,

Since I don't carry them I generally am not concerned with the question. However, since you pose it I suppose I would. I considered them such when we carried them however I had always felt a little uncomfortable in one sense ... ie. if H&A diamonds did not receive the Ex/Ex or Ideal grades on polish/symmetry from other suppliers there was generally a little bit more of a discount. Not so with 8*'s. On the contrary they cost me the most regardless of polish/symmetry grades (even down to "good"). Now ... I understand to some degree the thinking behind this strategy because the 2 components of optical symmetry and light return have far greater impact on diamond appearance than polish & symmetry do, and in the upcoming grading systems it appears that polish & symmetry are going to take a less significant role than the other components that will constitute the final grade ... so utimately,yes I would like to see *all* H&A stones also have the highest grades for polish/symmetry and perhaps that *should* be a criteria to be considered *super* ideal. In my minds eye, a super ideal does have the highest grades for polish symmetry ... anything less should be priced accordingly. In answre to the direct question of whehter I would consider an 8* a super ideal, yes I would however one that does not attain the highest grades for polish/symmetry.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Did it ever occur to you Rhino that what labs grade is often totally irrelevant to diamond beauty?

So why apply flawed grading principles?

 

[WinkHPD]

Rhino,

As you know, to continue to polish a stone when it has achieved perfect internal optical symmetry will destroy that symmetry thus reducing the quality of the return of light to the eye. Thus I would send you a big raspberry if I but could...

The stone is simply the original "super ideal" if such a label is to be used. All the others are "those that came after". Having perfect polish and external symmetry will never make up for the lack of perfect internal optical symmetry. To quote a local client who was talking with a Hearts on Fire dealer who was trying to hijack my already made sale, "Those are some beautiful stones, but they sure aren''t EightStars."

Yes, it would be nice if every EightStar could have perfect polish and internal symmetry too, but they can not. Since beauty is the primary point of the game, that is a minor fault that I certainly have NO PROBLEM living with. I will let others quibble over what constitutes a super ideal, but any list that leaves of the EightStar is a flawed list in my opinion.

Wink who sends his regards along with the raspberry

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 3/13/2005 2:40:59 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 3/10/2005 7:44:45 PM

Author: Richard Sherwood

I use the term 'super ideal' on my appraisals when a round brilliant cut has:


1. An AGS 0 ranking

2. Hearts & Arrows optical symmetry

3. Excellent Idealscope image

4. Excellent DiamCalc numbers


If any one of these ingredients are missing I don't use the term 'super ideal'.

Not that I'm trying to promote any brand (especially one that I don't carry) but would you not consider an 8* a super ideal Rich?

In all fairness, the criteria for a "super ideal" would need to apply equally across the board. If an EightStar has less than "excellent" or "ideal" polish and symmetry, then I wouldn't apply the term "super ideal" to it. In fact, I wouldn't even designate it as an "ideal" cut. I would make a note of it's outstanding optical symmetry, but then would designate it for whatever category it fell in because of it's characteristics.

As an example, would you consider a diamond which had ideal or super ideal cut characteristics to still be so if a portion of the girdle was extremely thin? No. Both the technical parameters as well as the optical parameters need to be exceptional to command the "super ideal" designation.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/13/2005 7

7:28 PM
Author: Wink
Rhino,


As you know, to continue to polish a stone when it has achieved perfect internal optical symmetry will destroy that symmetry thus reducing the quality of the return of light to the eye. Thus I would send you a big raspberry if I but could...


The stone is simply the original ''super ideal'' if such a label is to be used. All the others are ''those that came after''. Having perfect polish and external symmetry will never make up for the lack of perfect internal optical symmetry. To quote a local client who was talking with a Hearts on Fire dealer who was trying to hijack my already made sale, ''Those are some beautiful stones, but they sure aren''t EightStars.''


Yes, it would be nice if every EightStar could have perfect polish and internal symmetry too, but they can not. Since beauty is the primary point of the game, that is a minor fault that I certainly have NO PROBLEM living with. I will let others quibble over what constitutes a super ideal, but any list that leaves of the EightStar is a flawed list in my opinion.


Wink who sends his regards along with the raspberry

I can tell your an 8* dealer my friend.
There were h&a diamonds and super-ideals long before 8* came along.
If you want to credit them with spreading the word on them in the US then we can agree.
To be total honest.
Iv seen two 8* in person and I wasnt that impressed.
The personality they showed just didnt speak to me.
In my opinion they take the concept of showing large arrows too far and at least to my eyes looked on the darkish side in the table area.
Im not saying they were bad they just didnt speak to me.

 

[strmrdr]

This thread does bring to light my mixed feelings on 8* some of them dont meet my standards for super-ideal as Richard and Jon noted.
I dont buy into brands much and think people are much better off considering each diamond on a case by case basis.
So there are some 8* that dont make it.

 

[WinkHPD]

Check your history my friend. The EightStar was developed and sold in Japan for about 4 years prior to the Hearts and Arrows that were developed to show a similar pattern but only having to be concerned with 17 major facets instead of all 57.

You are free to like them or not, but they did come well before the H&A''s.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/13/2005 7:29:35 PM
Author: Wink
Check your history my friend. The EightStar was developed and sold in Japan for about 4 years prior to the Hearts and Arrows that were developed to show a similar pattern but only having to be concerned with 17 major facets instead of all 57.


You are free to like them or not, but they did come well before the H&A's.


Wink

actualy i dont need a link...
from the 8* website proof they predated the 8*.
"This search eventually led Mr. Tamura through the diamond centers in America and Europe. He still did not discover great quantities of diamonds without light leakage, but he did find a few small stones that performed perfectly under the Firescope. These stones all showed a unique eight-rayed pattern."

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

For the record 8* can make every diamond they brand EX / EX - but they would need a secondary market for the knated goods that refuse to be polished into Ex polish (internal grain hardness differences) and by making sure that the girdle valleys were never too thin.

Of course the fact that GIa measure girdle thickness at the valleys is only an example of "Lets do it differently to the rest of the world" thinking.
No lab should ever have measured girdle thickness there (besides Fred would never sell diamonds then - he might have gone into used cars)

 

[JohnQuixote]

Hello, lads & ladies.

Just flew in and boy are my arms tired, etc...

Here’s my understanding of the 8*/Superideal timeline:

1974-1984 Tsuyoshi Shigetomi of Tokyo performs research to develop the FireScope. A gentleman named Kazumi Okuda, contracted by Shigetomi, develops a tool based upon his research to help examine diamond cut. This device eventually becomes the FireScope (Raffaele Zancanella, who posts on PS as ‘Fleimstaler’ has offered info on the development of colored reflectors).

1985 A cutter named Higuchi produces the first EightStar diamond for a gentleman named Takanori Tamura in Tokyo after much research using the Firescope.

1987 Shigetomi produces an EightStar copy, called Apollon 8. It is not successful due to quality control issues.

1988 Kinsaku Yamashita, A salesman for Apollon 8 buys the the remaining Apollon 8 diamonds, adjusts production and renames the cuts Hearts & Arrows. The Hearts & Arrows viewer is developed.

In the 1990s the Super Ideal cut reached America.

Since that time the standards for what constitutes true “Hearts & Arrows” patterning has evolved. Just as basic cut grading will continue to undergo refinement, so will the concept of what constitutes a “Super Ideal” diamond.

(Side note: I’m compiling info on the timeline as a project. Facts anyone has to offer are appreciated.)

- - - - -

For our part - Ongoing aspects of our design, study and evolution have to do with the precise alignment of the pavilion mains (hearts), since they are the mirrors - the engines which drive light return. Precise arrows are a natural result of pavilion patterning. Some of the most exciting current work is being done with the uniform adjustment of minor facets and upper girdle treatment within proven sets of major proportions.

These things influence maximized light return in soft & diffuse as well as direct light (well, duh - aligning the mirrors precisely will allow maximization of returned light) and observable, controllable and repeatable differences in the character of the returned light - especially the visual balance of WLR & DCLR and contrast.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/13/2005 6:59:23 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Did it ever occur to you Rhino that what labs grade is often totally irrelevant to diamond beauty?

So why apply flawed grading principles?

I think that's a great point, but can argue both sides (selective schizophrenia!)

Hand one: GIA has indeed determined no observable difference between VG, G and EX lab graded symmetry. Therefore, the 8* will be just fine without needing to be Ex/Ex.

On the other hand...

Hand two: Did it occur to you Garry that clarity grades are often totally irrelevant to diamond beauty? After all, there is no observable difference between VS, VVS and IF clarity.

So why do people want VVS? For the same reason they want Ideal (ex) polish and symmetry: It's a pedigree. It's first class. Cream of the crop. Top of the heap. Button down shoes. Longing to stray.

On the OTHER hand (the third one)... A premium for precision patterning makes more sense. I do not push precision patterning (H&A) on anyone, but a proven design of exact patterning for all aspects of a diamond is a nice way to guarantee a consistent look and performance.

Cut will always be king.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 3/13/2005 8:42:46 PM
Author: strmrdr

actualy i dont need a link...
from the 8* website proof they predated the 8*.
''This search eventually led Mr. Tamura through the diamond centers in America and Europe. He still did not discover great quantities of diamonds without light leakage, but he did find a few small stones that performed perfectly under the Firescope. These stones all showed a unique eight-rayed pattern.''

Yes, but these were accidents, not done on purpose and most of them were .10cts or less.

It was not done on purpose until long after EightStar did it.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Ah ha, Mr. quixote has weighed in with actual facts, not just memories of an old man.

Thanks John. I have that information somewhere, but not the time to go look it up.

Wink

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/13/2005 7:24:36 PM
Author: strmrdr
This thread does bring to light my mixed feelings on 8* some of them dont meet my standards for super-ideal as Richard and Jon noted.
I dont buy into brands much and think people are much better off considering each diamond on a case by case basis.
So there are some 8* that dont make it.

stmrdr....i like your style,you don''t hold nothing back

one evening my SIL came over to visit she had on a 1.18ct I vvs1 8* and i was comparing it with my wife''s recut (infinity diamond) 1.15ct I vs2 H&A,even though her 8* is a higher premium stone i can''t say it''s a better preforming stone,all i can say is,the 8* is a different kind of stone.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 3/13/2005 8:48:50 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Of course the fact that GIa measure girdle thickness at the valleys is only an example of 'Lets do it differently to the rest of the world' thinking.

No lab should ever have measured girdle thickness there

I understand where you're coming from with this Garry, but don't forget the importance of knowing how thin the girdle is in the valleys. If you're measuring the girdle only at the high points then important factors will get missed on the report, such as an extremely thin portion of the girdle.

In that respect, it makes MORE sense to be measuring at the valleys, which puts the rest of the world behind GIA's thinking.

Personally, I'm considering including both in my reports in the interest of thoroughness.
(Which would put the rest of the world behind my thinking, heh heh heh...)

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/14/2005 7:33:22 AM
Author: Richard Sherwood

Date: 3/13/2005 8:48:50 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


Of course the fact that GIa measure girdle thickness at the valleys is only an example of ''Lets do it differently to the rest of the world'' thinking.


No lab should ever have measured girdle thickness there

I understand where you''re coming from with this Garry, but don''t forget the importance of knowing how thin the girdle is in the valleys. If you''re measuring the girdle only at the high points then important factors will get missed on the report, such as an extremely thin portion of the girdle.


In that respect, it makes MORE sense to be measuring at the valleys, which puts the rest of the world behind GIA''s thinking.


Personally, I''m considering including both in my reports in the interest of thoroughness.

(Which would put the rest of the world behind my thinking, heh heh heh...)

I think it would be a great idea to put both in the reports.
The more information the better.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Rich if you think about it there is no way a diamond can get proportionally thinner in the valley if you set your girdle bones and mains lowest / thinnest points at a specific number unless there is an extra facet.

I have no objection to measuring and quoting / mentioning such danger points so setters know to look for them etc. But the grading of girdles based on valleys was bad.

AGS are dropping it - I expect gIA will too.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/13/2005 3:19:51 PM
Author: Wink

What I like about Storm Riders light box is that it is NOT an attempt to provide yet another machine that purports to measure performance, but rather a series of photos in varying light conditions that will show what that particular stone does in those conditions.

Isn''t that close to the line up of six photos shown by the Brilliance Scope interface ? Their scale is allot less useful than the pics, IMO. It could even be left out.

Yeah... there''s isn''t much variation of light conditions (just two - very bright and very dull for the top right shot showing contrast alone), but it''s the closest thing. I am quite amazed no other cut grading system gives anything to look at that remotely resembles a diamond