This point has been made before, but I think it's time to stop calling any angel investor a super angel. The line between angel and VC is already quite small. Do we need a tinier margin between?
Yes - we tend to agree. But it seems that the term "super angel" has entered the vernacular to some extent although even its definition remains a bit nebulous.
Mark Suster had a post where he mentioned if you have a fund, you're a VC, and if you invest your own money, you're an angel. That's a nice clean demarcation between the two in our opinion as well. Maybe we'll coalesce on a nice clean definition in the near future.
That said, if you are an angel investor, super angel is much better branding :)
Then it's Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Dominations, Thrones, Cherubim and finally Seraphim (the exact order can vary, but I'm going with Dante).
That should provide enough fuel for angel-on-angel one-upmanship for now. (If not, we can move on to the Jewish angelology, which includes four additional ranks above Seraphim.)
Micro VCs seems to be a more apt description but the popular/tech media def seems to have gravitated towards the term super angel.