The registry's most stable stone off-axis, and its cleanest light budget in cubic zirconia.
Global score against Tolkowsky 1919, measured the same way in the same material.
Diamondn = 2.417+1.19Ahead
Moissaniten = 2.65−1.89Behind
Cubic zirconian = 2.16+0.72Slightly ahead
−2Tolkowsky 1919 = 0+2
The short version
Rafaello is cut to survive movement. It holds 96.9 under a 20° tilt in diamond and 97.8 in moissanite, the two highest tilt figures in the registry, and that stability is where most of its 1.19-point margin over the standard comes from.
In cubic zirconia it returns 99.7% of light usefully and loses 0.13%, the best pair of numbers in the whole registry. Its weakness is moissanite, where it leaks 12.46%.
The ledger
Where the points come from
Global is a weighted sum of six terms. Subtract the standard's figure from this cut's,
term by term, and the six differences add back up to the published gap. Nothing is hidden in the total,
so you can see exactly which part of the stone is doing the work.
In diamond n = 2.417
Ahead
92.84 against the standard's 91.65. Tilt carries more of this margin than any other term does, and it is the biggest tilt contribution in the registry: +0.70 of +1.19. Brightness and fire add 0.74 between them; leak hands 0.28 back.
TermThis cut / standardPoints
Useful lightweight 0.3493.992.6+0.44
Fireweight 0.2080.278.7+0.30
Tiltweight 0.1696.992.5+0.70
Scintillationweight 0.1098.698.4+0.02
Symmetryweight 0.10100.0100.0+0.00
Leakweight 0.10 ↓4.942.17−0.28
Sum of the six terms+1.19
Published Global gap +1.19. The six terms reconstruct it to
0.00 of a point. The difference is rounding in the source figures, not a second method.
In moissanite n = 2.65
Behind
90.97 against the standard's 92.86. The one place the design fails, and fire is the biggest loss on the ledger: 90.3 against 97.2, worth −1.38. The 12.46% leak costs another 0.50 and useful light falls to 84.2, second-lowest in the material.
TermThis cut / standardPoints
Useful lightweight 0.3484.286.1−0.65
Fireweight 0.2090.397.2−1.38
Tiltweight 0.1697.894.0+0.61
Scintillationweight 0.1098.698.4+0.02
Symmetryweight 0.10100.0100.0+0.00
Leakweight 0.10 ↓12.467.46−0.50
Sum of the six terms−1.90
Published Global gap −1.89. The six terms reconstruct it to
0.01 of a point. The difference is rounding in the source figures, not a second method.
In cubic zirconia n = 2.16
Slightly ahead
95.31 against the standard's 94.59. At or ahead of the standard on every measured term, one of only two results in the registry to manage that. 99.7% useful light and 0.13% leak are both registry bests.
TermThis cut / standardPoints
Useful lightweight 0.3499.798.4+0.44
Fireweight 0.2087.187.0+0.02
Tiltweight 0.1688.287.1+0.18
Scintillationweight 0.1098.698.4+0.02
Symmetryweight 0.10100.0100.0+0.00
Leakweight 0.10 ↓0.130.58+0.04
Sum of the six terms+0.70
Published Global gap +0.72. The six terms reconstruct it to
0.02 of a point. The difference is rounding in the source figures, not a second method.
What it's doing
A ring spends very little of its life dead-on to the eye. Rafaello is cut for the other angles: 4.4 points of tilt performance over the standard, worth 0.70 of the 1.19-point gap, and the single largest term in it: more than brightness (0.44) or fire (0.30) contributes on its own.
It gives some of that back in leak, 4.94% against 2.17%, at a cost of 0.28. The net is a stone that changes less than the standard does when the hand turns, which is the one condition the registry measures that most closely matches how jewellery is actually seen.
Where it gives ground
Moissanite, and plainly. It leaks 12.46% there, the worst figure in the registry in any material, and its fire falls to 90.3 against the standard's 97.2, which is the larger loss of the two at 1.38 points. Add a brightness deficit and it lands 1.89 points below the standard.
The tilt advantage survives at 97.8, still the best in the registry. It cannot cover a light budget that poor. Cut this one in diamond or cubic zirconia.
How to read this
The protocol
Monte-Carlo ray census on exact facet geometry: 3,200 rays face-up plus 2,200 at
20° tilt, cosine-weighted from a 7° near-vertical cone. Every cut is scored against Tolkowsky's 1919 ideal,
measured the same way in the same material.
These are engine estimates, ± 2 points, not lab-certified grades.
A lead of under half a point sits inside the engine's resolution, so we don't claim it as a win. A deficit is reported as a deficit, however small.
Symmetry
Reads 100 for every cut, because each is modelled from exact geometry rather than
a finished stone. It contributes nothing to any comparison here: it cancels, and we show the row anyway.
The rest of the registry
Ahead of the standard in diamond and cubic zirconia.