Proposal Ring - Part 2

[EricMagnusLensherr]

There is another difference between GIA and AGSL.
AGSL uses technology and light returns to grade their diamond, but GIA uses stone to stone comparison to decide on the diamond cut grade.

The significance of this is that while some GIA triple ex may not shine that well as their proportions are not as good, they are generally bright when viewed from most angles due the method used by GIA (using humans eyes as the criteria) while the method used by AGSL (as well as people who uses ASET and Idealscope) will lead to very beautiful and vibrant stones from commonly viewed angles, one of which is the diamond in its face up position.

I knew their different grading methodologies but didn't consider this. Thanks for bringing it up

I agree with you that a 0.8 is around 6mm while 1 carat is around 6.5mm with some minor differences due to diamond depth.

However, please note that you do not have a vernier calipers now. All you have is your eyes. Imagine the center a diamond is very bright and the sides are rather bright too, compared with another diamond whose center is less bright but the sides are dull. This difference in lighting effect will cause you to have a misconception in size. In a super exaggerated analogy (warning, this is the most extreme case which is not likely in real life), how much bigger is it when you try to estimate the size of a lighted bulb compared to it when it is off.

If you google on the web you should be able to find a JP video which shows how a 0.9 super ideal is same size as a 1 carat GIA common triple ex.

Very valid analogy, and i did consider this factor as well, i just didn't think this optical illusion can make up for the size difference when placed side by side, and i still don't. From what i've seen, among this kind of optical tricks which can help in making a diamond look bigger, even factoring in a setting, such as NSEW/Compass prongs etc and the "glow"of the super ideal, in a side by side, I can still tell a 0.8 from a 1ct. But only more extreme ones like a halo can make it look significantly bigger or big enough for a 0.8 to seem like a 1.0 in a side to side comparison, and that also depends on the halo style etc to trick/distract/confuse your mind. If not placed side by side, then yes, i agree with you, the "glow" effect and normal settings tricks is probably enough to trick a viewer in to thinking it is bigger then it is, and close to a 1.0ct.

 

[Kiatty]

GXGX! After reading this thread, I'm sure we all have more knowledge that SAs already

I see a few dots at the hearts that looks like the inclusions. Is the diamond eye clean? Most VS2s are eye clean anyway.. so it should be safe

yeah its eyeclean, but the inclusion on most of the hearts is quite an eye sore to me. there is only 2 to choose from, so maybe i will have to upgrade the specs if no new stock comes in

 

[XsenseX]

Thanks for sharing! Nice to hear the point of view from a female perspective

Out of interest, do girls often compare ring brands?

I think after 2 years, you are really getting out of touch. Make a trip down to Jannpaul to see a comparison of their super ideal to normal diamonds. Then you will really see what is visible to the eye and what is not. Static pictures do not tell the full story.

It is the cold hard truth that a super ideal G 0.8 carat will look bigger or same size and much more dazzling as compared to a 1 carat D with good cut. For obvious reason, the 0.8 is going to cost more as well. So even without looking at the cert or voicing out their specs, the eye could tell it all.
Never comprise cut.

Lastly, I want to agree with one sentence of yours. Girls do look at carats first. However, once they compare side by side, the one with the superior cuts wins hand down. (the girl with the bigger diamond may even wonder if the sales assistant had scammed her) LoL!

Hi guys ... Was back from visiting Jannpaul while i was looking for a necklace for my wife bday ... (*Anyways, i got a floating diamond necklace for her, not from there)

Their Cut is really nice ... Very brilliant ...

But i asked to compared between a super ideal 0.8 vs (one grade lower) 1 carat ...
(Not going down to 'good' cut, thats too much)

0.8 does look bigger but nope, its definitely NOT bigger than the 1 carat ... I was thinking how magically could it be but it didn't seem to work on me ...

Any lastly, girls do this when comparing (They usually don't dare to bluff the carat size)
Girl A: "Wow, how big is yours, looks really big"
Girl B: "Mine is 1 carat How about yours?"
Girl A: "Nice!, my one is .8"
Girl B: "Looks bigger than .8 leh! Very nice"

Yes, Girl A most prob has the Super Ideal 0.8 but to the rest of the table ... Yes, Girl B has the ONE carat regardless of CUT ... And neither would she think she got scammed just because .8 looks quite near to 1 carat ... It just doesn't happen to friendly grp unless the grp are just superfical competitive bitches that fight over anything ....

Yes, i heard it over coffee bean, the table beside me last year ... LOL ...

Its just generalising and doesn't apply to every one's gf lar ... So don't be too taken in by my 'experience' ... And like what EricMagnusLensherr mentioned ... I won't take a D color 1 carat and downgrade my cut all the way to just 'fair' ... haha ...

 

[bedposthalo]

Is this the video you guys are talking about?

They showed 2 1ct diamonds next to each other and it's obvious that the Super ideal cut diamond looks bigger than the GIA triple exc one. Though the triple exc one might be the lower end of the exc range with a 63% depth.

The other diamond they compared was a 0.90 Super ideal and 1.01 GIA triple exc. This is where they both look similar in size.. not bigger.
Since when did anyone say that a 0.8 super ideal will look bigger than a 1?
0.8ct looking bigger than a 1ct sounds too exaggerated to me.

The point is that a superior cut diamond will look bigger AND more brilliant compared to one that is a less cut. Once again, I must say the comparision should be of fairer ground which is 0.9 vs. 1.0 and not 0.8..

If you consider the price point, a 1ct usually costs like 3k more than a 0.9ct, assuming the other color, clarity, etc. are the same.
It makes more sense to get a Super Ideal Cut 0.9ct than a 1ct GIA triple exc one, when the Super Ideal cut looks the same size, but sparklier, and cost cheaper.
Of cos I can't deny that 1ct sounds pretty awesome during discussion

 

[Lurker_13]

Very interesting information here bros Maybe another non technical thing to consider is the finger size too.

The same 0.8ct diamond may also look bigger on a small finger with more finger coverage (may appear like a 1ct) than on one with bigger finger lesser finger coverage. Hope I am making sense here

 

[crunsik]

Lazare is an ideal cut diamond. It's abit too pricey for an ideal cut. If you're into Lazare, Hong Kong should have a bigger selection.. it's a Hong Kong brand.. (I might be wrong though)

thanks for the advise. any difference between the Lazare and JP Solasfera? quite new to all these diamonds.

 

[EricMagnusLensherr]

Very different, Lazare is branded ideal cut diamond, but its still a traditional 57 facet, solasfera is a modified round brilliant with 91 facet. The normal comparison of ideal/super ideal vs solasfera is still the same. Will quote my own post, in which someone asked about JP Super Ideal and Solasfera. The JP super ideal and Lazare are both traditional 57 facet modern round brilliants. The last time i went to Larry's (Only Lazare agent in singapore that i know of), they didn't have any of the usual scopes to play with. Not sure if its still the same now.

Please note that some of the following is my opinion only and others may or may not agree. First of all, it is difficult compare directly as the Jann Paul super ideal is a traditional 57 but round facet while the solasfera is a modified round cut. As such, normal grading labs like gia does not grade the cut of the solasfera.

I can almost garuntee that most stones by JP, be it their super ideal or their solasfera of which they are the sole Singapore distributor, Are cut to extremely high standards, and chances are you won't go wrong with either. Which you prefer depends on what you would like. The solasfera, due to additional facets, produce a larger number of smaller flashes, while the super ideal produces a smaller number of larger flashes. This is an extremely different characteristic, and it depends on your preference. Additional features of the solasfera is close to 100% light return (contrary to what some customer were informed, it is NOT 100%, but it's damned close and among the highest)And its 10 hearts and arrows rather then the traditional 8.

Here comes my opinions. In videos by jp, the solasfera looks much better to me. But upon visiting the shop, I find that this is not always true. For me, it would seem like for smaller sizes, below 0.7ct, the smaller flashes of the solasfera, makes it look worse to me. In this case, I would prefer a normal 57 facet. Larger then this,esp 1ct and above, the smaller but increased number of flashes looks better to me. This is especially true once you hit the 2ct range. To me, this difference between video and real life is probably because for smaller sizes, the video is not an accurate representation of the viewing condition. The video is extremely magnified compared to viewing a smaller stone in real life and what looks good when large might not look good when small. Another reason is that human eyes perceive light differently from a camera, and if the flashes are too small, the human eyes might not be able so resolve it. once again, this is my personal opinion and preference, and every one is different.

 

[XsenseX]

Very interesting information here bros Maybe another non technical thing to consider is the finger size too.

The same 0.8ct diamond may also look bigger on a small finger with more finger coverage (may appear like a 1ct) than on one with bigger finger lesser finger coverage. Hope I am making sense here

Depends ... I sat down with a few girls comparing before ... A very skinny one and a normal one ... When you put 2 hands together ... The higher carat diamond is obvious regardless of finger size ... If u see either one ALONE then maybe cause its not side by side mah ...

Plus the legendary 3 prongs (Martini style) vs 4 prongs (Basket style) settings for the diamond ...

3 Prongs make the diamond rounder and shows more stone ... Therefore making it look bigger over a 3 seconds glance ... "Over coffee table once again" ... Hahha

 

[hollander]

Very interesting information here bros Maybe another non technical thing to consider is the finger size too.

The same 0.8ct diamond may also look bigger on a small finger with more finger coverage (may appear like a 1ct) than on one with bigger finger lesser finger coverage. Hope I am making sense here

We have discussed the effect of 4C on the size of the diamond, Prong type, the finger coverage, and etc. Now is the Physical Aspect of the ring itself.

Since we have started discussing on how a diamond would look like bigger by "altering" or somewhat "fooling" or vision. Here's some of the suggestion.

Some uses side stones to bring out the size of the center stone.

Some uses halo's to make the center stone even bigger.

You will see from above the distance of the Center Setting/Head from the Shoulder and and Shank will affect the size of the diamond when we look at it from the top.

The size of the Shoulder in terms of width and depth againt the shank and the head will make the Center Setting/Head to look bigger.

The size of the Shank in terms of width and depth against the Head/Center Settings will make the head look bigger.

The size of the prongs, will affect the Center Setting/Head.

What else?

 

[torque]

We have discussed the effect of 4C on the size of the diamond, Prong type, the finger coverage, and etc. Now is the Physical Aspect of the ring itself.

Since we have started discussing on how a diamond would look like bigger by "altering" or somewhat "fooling" or vision. Here's some of the suggestion.

Some uses side stones to bring out the size of the center stone.

Some uses halo's to make the center stone even bigger.

You will see from above the distance of the Center Setting/Head from the Shoulder and and Shank will affect the size of the diamond when we look at it from the top.

The size of the Shoulder in terms of width and depth againt the shank and the head will make the Center Setting/Head to look bigger.

The size of the Shank in terms of width and depth against the Head/Center Settings will make the head look bigger.

The size of the prongs, will affect the Center Setting/Head.

What else?

How does halo affect its ability to look bigger? Smaller prong make diamond bigger? Size of shoudler and shank should be smaller? 4 prong or 6 prong better? With tray or without tray (floating uncovered) which one will make it look bigger?

Thank you!!

 

[gravityz3r0]

Any bro here happen to have an idealscope that i can borrow for a minute or two ?

 

[EricMagnusLensherr]

We have discussed the effect of 4C on the size of the diamond, Prong type, the finger coverage, and etc. Now is the Physical Aspect of the ring itself.

Since we have started discussing on how a diamond would look like bigger by "altering" or somewhat "fooling" or vision. Here's some of the suggestion.

Some uses side stones to bring out the size of the center stone.

Some uses halo's to make the center stone even bigger.

You will see from above the distance of the Center Setting/Head from the Shoulder and and Shank will affect the size of the diamond when we look at it from the top.

The size of the Shoulder in terms of width and depth againt the shank and the head will make the Center Setting/Head to look bigger.

The size of the Shank in terms of width and depth against the Head/Center Settings will make the head look bigger.

The size of the prongs, will affect the Center Setting/Head.

What else?

Lol ! I think you covered most of it already ! Now to see some creative soul try to put all of it into one ring. Hahaha

 

[hollander]

How does halo affect its ability to look bigger? Smaller prong make diamond bigger? Size of shoudler and shank should be smaller? 4 prong or 6 prong better? With tray or without tray (floating uncovered) which one will make it look bigger?

Thank you!!

Hi Bro,

Halo will make it "look bigger" looking upright or from a distance as it would like like one big center stone, but if you are looking foot or two away, it will not work it's magic.

The bigger the prong the better? it depends, and if we are to use 4 or 6 prongs, it's just making the head or the center stones diameter bigger but its actually masking the diamond. But it still depends on your preferrence.
4 or 6 I will be secured ;-)

The Shoulder should be smaller, but probably you will ask how about in the case of the classic Tiffany Settings? check the distance of the Head or the lenght of the Gallery, playing with those will make its magic.

Floating to me is really nice, but again depends on your preferrence.

 

[ange1yn]

i like blue fluorescence diamonds. do you know if JP carry blue tinted diamonds? looking at 0.85 G VS1/2 Super ideal cut fluorescence med or strong. how much is the approx cost of the diamond?

 

[zeally]

Is this the video you guys are talking about?

They showed 2 1ct diamonds next to each other and it's obvious that the Super ideal cut diamond looks bigger than the GIA triple exc one. Though the triple exc one might be the lower end of the exc range with a 63% depth.

The other diamond they compared was a 0.90 Super ideal and 1.01 GIA triple exc. This is where they both look similar in size.. not bigger.
Since when did anyone say that a 0.8 super ideal will look bigger than a 1?
0.8ct looking bigger than a 1ct sounds too exaggerated to me.

The point is that a superior cut diamond will look bigger AND more brilliant compared to one that is a less cut. Once again, I must say the comparision should be of fairer ground which is 0.9 vs. 1.0 and not 0.8..

If you consider the price point, a 1ct usually costs like 3k more than a 0.9ct, assuming the other color, clarity, etc. are the same.
It makes more sense to get a Super Ideal Cut 0.9ct than a 1ct GIA triple exc one, when the Super Ideal cut looks the same size, but sparklier, and cost cheaper.
Of cos I can't deny that 1ct sounds pretty awesome during discussion

0.9 super ideal being same size as 1carat is as far as it can go if the one carat stone is still a GIA triple ex. But a GIA good 1 carat can most certainly look smaller that a 0.8. Here are two links from bluenile. The dimensions states it all. Furthermore, we have yet to factor in the lighting condition. Something bright will look bigger than something dull.


0.82-Carat Round Diamond | Blue Nile

1.00-Carat Round Diamond | Blue Nile

Please never settle for anything less than GIA excellent cut before you prioritise on size.

 

[zeally]

i like blue fluorescence diamonds. do you know if JP carry blue tinted diamonds? looking at 0.85 G VS1/2 Super ideal cut fluorescence med or strong. how much is the approx cost of the diamond?

You can refer to brian gavin blue collection. that shop specializes is super ideal cut diamond with blue fluorescence.

 

[EricMagnusLensherr]

0.9 super ideal being same size as 1carat is as far as it can go if the one carat stone is still a GIA triple ex. But a GIA good 1 carat can most certainly look smaller that a 0.8. Here are two links from bluenile. The dimensions states it all. Furthermore, we have yet to factor in the lighting condition. Something bright will look bigger than something dull.


0.82-Carat Round Diamond | Blue Nile

1.00-Carat Round Diamond | Blue Nile

Please never settle for anything less than GIA excellent cut before you prioritise on size.

Once again, this is an extreme comparison... GIA good is NOT good and fair is worthless. Bluennile has 100,000 stones, only 400 are fair, less then 0.5%. Good only about 5k, thats about 5%, meaning the bottom 5.5%. In addition you are comparing with the a stone from the bottom of the 5.5% and with specially selected stones to meet your criteria, 67% depth, with another stone again selected to meet your criteria of a depth less then 60. Go through this thread, how many JP Super ideal stones do you see with a depth less then 60 and how many more then 60 ?

This is an exception and chances of these two stones meeting in real life are close to nil. If you are saying such a case can exist, i agree with you. If you are saying this is generally true if you do not select an excellent cut stone, i do not agree.

BUT I do agree that you should not settle for anything less then an Excellent Cut. hahahaha !

 

[aikhoo88]

Hihi,

Visited JannPaul last weekend... which stone do you guys think is a better one?

Stone 1: (AGS)

Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 5.23 - 5.25 x 3.24 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Color Grade: AGS 0.5 (E)
Clarity Grade: AGS 3 (VS1)
Carat Weight 0.546
Fluorescence: Negligible

Light Performance: 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Table: 55.6%
Crown Angle: 34.8
Crown Height: 15.5%
Girdle: Faceted, 1.5% to 4.2%
Pavilion Angle: 40.6
Pavilion Depth: 42.8%
Star Length: 54%
Lower Girdle Length: 77%
Total Depth: 61.7%
Culet: Pointed


Stone 2 (GIA)
Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 5.58 - 5.60 x 3.40 mm
Cut Grade: Excellent
Color Grade: F
Clarity Grade: VS1
Carat Weight 0.65
Fluorescence: None

Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Table: 58%
Crown Angle: 33
Crown Height: 13.5%
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted, 4.0%
Pavilion Angle: 41
Pavilion Depth: 43.5%
Star Length: 55%
Lower Girdle Length: 80%
Total Depth: 60.9%
Culet: None


Stone 1 is quoted ~4.5K while Stone 2 is about 6K

 

[Grizz.P]

Hihi,

Visited JannPaul last weekend... which stone do you guys think is a better one?

Stone 1: (AGS)

Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 5.23 - 5.25 x 3.24 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Color Grade: AGS 0.5 (E)
Clarity Grade: AGS 3 (VS1)
Carat Weight 0.546
Fluorescence: Negligible

Light Performance: 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Table: 55.6%
Crown Angle: 34.8
Crown Height: 15.5%
Girdle: Faceted, 1.5% to 4.2%
Pavilion Angle: 40.6
Pavilion Depth: 42.8%
Star Length: 54%
Lower Girdle Length: 77%
Total Depth: 61.7%
Culet: Pointed


Stone 2 (GIA)
Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 5.58 - 5.60 x 3.40 mm
Cut Grade: Excellent
Color Grade: F
Clarity Grade: VS1
Carat Weight 0.65
Fluorescence: None

Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Table: 58%
Crown Angle: 33
Crown Height: 13.5%
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted, 4.0%
Pavilion Angle: 41
Pavilion Depth: 43.5%
Star Length: 55%
Lower Girdle Length: 80%
Total Depth: 60.9%
Culet: None


Stone 1 is quoted ~4.5K while Stone 2 is about 6K

Are both stones their super ideal range?
If can stretch the budget, then the bigger one. It not, I think the smaller one is good enough

 

[Lurker_13]

Hihi,

Visited JannPaul last weekend... which stone do you guys think is a better one?

Stone 1: (AGS)

Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 5.23 - 5.25 x 3.24 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Color Grade: AGS 0.5 (E)
Clarity Grade: AGS 3 (VS1)
Carat Weight 0.546
Fluorescence: Negligible

Light Performance: 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Table: 55.6%
Crown Angle: 34.8
Crown Height: 15.5%
Girdle: Faceted, 1.5% to 4.2%
Pavilion Angle: 40.6
Pavilion Depth: 42.8%
Star Length: 54%
Lower Girdle Length: 77%
Total Depth: 61.7%
Culet: Pointed


Stone 2 (GIA)
Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 5.58 - 5.60 x 3.40 mm
Cut Grade: Excellent
Color Grade: F
Clarity Grade: VS1
Carat Weight 0.65
Fluorescence: None

Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Table: 58%
Crown Angle: 33
Crown Height: 13.5%
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted, 4.0%
Pavilion Angle: 41
Pavilion Depth: 43.5%
Star Length: 55%
Lower Girdle Length: 80%
Total Depth: 60.9%
Culet: None


Stone 1 is quoted ~4.5K while Stone 2 is about 6K

Any scopes to share? U hve not stated the thickness of the girdle for stone 1. With the given info above i would think stone 1 would b a better choice, but will need scope images to confirm.