Four Diamonds to choose from. Please give your opinions.

[phiberoptik]

Unfortuantely I have no pictures because these are B&M in house diamonds but I have seen 40x mag pictures of them in the store so I can vouch that they are worth looking more into. I have put all four through the HCA, but is there one of the four that stands out as the best deal?? THANKS in advance to those people who are far more knowledgeable than me.

NOTE: HCA results are in order Light Return, Fire, Scinillation, Spread

#1:

$3300
.81ct
G
SI1
GIA Cut: VG
Crown Angle: 35
Pavilion Angle: 41
Table %: 54
Depth %: 62.2
Polish: EX
Symmetry: VG
HCA: VG, VG, VG, VG


#2

$3600
.81ct
F
SI1
GIA Cut: VG
Crown Angle: 35
Pavilion Angle: 40.4
Table %: 56
Depth %: 61.2
Polish: EX
Symmetry: VG
HCA: EX, EX, EX, VG


#3

$3300
.81ct
G
SI1
GIA Cut: VG
Crown Angle: 34.5
Pavilion Angle: 41.0
Table %: 55
Depth %: 63.2
Polish: EX
Symmetry: VG
HCA: EX, VG, VG, G


#4

$3300
.814ct
F
SI2 (has a cloud in the center but I argue it cant be seen by the naked eye and is hardly marked on the Cert)
AGS Cut: Ideal
Crown Angle: 34.2
Pavilion Angle: 40.5
Table %: 55
Depth %: 60.9
Polish: ID
Symmetry: ID
HCA: EX, EX, EX, VG

 

[chrono]

Since you have seen these diamonds with your own eyes, which one do you prefer? The HCA is just a weeding out tool, it does not determine that one stone is better than the other when you are looking at stones that score between HCA 0 and 2. If you have an Idealscope, it will help you if you need more confidence. Other than that, I doubt anyone else can tell you more than what you already know (unless they care to run a simulation).

 

[Regular Guy]

Though...despite the promise...I''d tend to avoid #4, based on this and other comments Garry''s made recently...

 

[phiberoptik]

I have only seen magnified images and even thought Ive tried to research all the ins and outs of angles, percentages, etc. I thought maybe people such as yourself may be able to see something in the numbers that makes one stand out more than the other. I know there is a science to diamonds that I dont completely understand and I dont think I could tell the difference between the four in person... so someone who knows the science more than I do, Id like to hear their choice. It will then help me choose taking it into consideration with what i can see in person.

Thanks

 

[Regular Guy]

Ph,

all else being equal (it never is)...I''d pick #2...based on the lower color, and more x''s. But...you''ll pay $300 for that. And you didn''t need any expertise to cipher that yourself.

Consider getting an idealscope yourself to enhance your own ability to look at them (top right under tools). That can help make an actual comparison...which is what you''re after.

Otherwise, several pepsi tests...with or without an IS. That''s what I''d suggest.

The HCA is a pretty good tool, but it can''t eliminate noise in the data, and unaccounted for data...which speak louder than other variability, I think, you were hoping would be more defining. Except...interesting all GIA options are VG for GIA standards. Just a coincidence?

Regards,

 

[phiberoptik]

Ira Z., Im not sure what you mean by this: "Except...interesting all GIA options are VG for GIA standards. Just a coincidence?"

 

[Regular Guy]

Looking at comparables on-line...pricing seems more than fair...and very comparable with options available here...albeit with AGS certification. This...given you have a store to walk to, and take care of you.

But...now that GIA has included cut grading in its certification...it is only reasonable to think/hope you'd get a relative discount for getting less than their own measured "excellent." See the 5th line down for each of #1, 2 & 3. They say by GIA's own standards...not HCA's...you're not getting what they consider their cream.

 

[phiberoptik]

Ahhh ok, well actually I wrote all of these down on paper and brought them home from the store and typed them up. I think one of the first 3 was actually graded GIA Excellent but I cant remember which.

I read yesterday on here where some of the GIA Cut Graded Very Good diamonds, actually had better performance than some of the ones graded Excellent so I decided to look at some of them to see how the numbers showed up. I had two more diamonds I didnt type up here, that once put into HCA were only Good and Fair in most categories. These are the top 4 out of the 6.

Thanks again

 

[phiberoptik]

Almost 80 views and 2 people have responded...

I love people''s opinions!

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 11/16/2007 6:54:11 PM
Author: phiberoptik
Almost 80 views and 2 people have responded...

I love people''s opinions!

Well you are in good hands w/Regular Guy and Chrono, but since you asked I would pick no. 2 or 4 leaning toward 2. I would look at 2 and 4 outside and inside and see which one you like best. HTH''s

 

[phiberoptik]

I knew it was just a matter of time until my PS best friend Skippy found this topic! Thanks Skippy. I dont think 1 or 3 are even in the race. Im leary of the cloud in the middle of #4 but its of a light shade and you can practically see through it. The symmetry of the diamond is perfect though and it showed in the photo I saw. Unfortunately they dont have IS images.

The clincher is that these diamonds are at their parent company vault, so.... I cant really see them side by side unless I put deposits on both... Im leary of that.

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 11/16/2007 7:06:15 PM
Author: phiberoptik
I knew it was just a matter of time until my PS best friend Skippy found this topic! Thanks Skippy. I dont think 1 or 3 are even in the race. Im leary of the cloud in the middle of #4 but its of a light shade and you can practically see through it. The symmetry of the diamond is perfect though and it showed in the photo I saw. Unfortunately they dont have IS images.

The clincher is that these diamonds are at their parent company vault, so.... I cant really see them side by side unless I put deposits on both... Im leary of that.

hehee, blush, very sweet (thanks)! Well, they are just showing you pics?

I am throwing this one out there because it looks nice and is only $2900ish

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-471538.htm As if it is eye clean

or this one being .84 carats in your price range if also eye clean
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-471536.htmhttp://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-471538.htm

 

[phiberoptik]

Here is the Cert. # for #2 if you want to look it up. Unfortunately GIA wont show the actual copy of the cert...

16023869

www.gia.edu/reportcheck

Apparently #4 is sold hah!

 

[Skippy123]

Oh, I didn't realize the GIA cut was very good. hmmm

Here is the info

Report Type: GIA Diamond Dossier®

Date of Issue: July 13, 2007
Laser Inscription Registry: GIA 16023869

Round Brilliant

Measurements: 5.98 - 6.01 x 3.67 mm

Carat Weight: 0.81

This one is ideal like no. 4 http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-471538.htm

 

[phiberoptik]

Im kind of locked into going B&M. It sucks but its just off topic... so it looks like #2 is the winner

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 11/16/2007 7:37:33 PM
Author: phiberoptik
Im kind of locked into going B&M. It sucks but its just off topic... so it looks like #2 is the winner

Well, can they look for other ideal stones? I would have them look some more.

 

[phiberoptik]

Well I ordered in #2 to take a look at. I analyzed a 40x mag photo of it and I honestly cannot see any of the inclusions and the photo is one that would be easy to see any major inclusions in. Ive always thought the way WF photos take, it makes the diamond look amazing, but its hard to see any inclusions, where as other images are rather lack luster in regards to the diamonds appearance but allow for a more clear identification of the inclusions.

So Im thinking this might be the one. I plan on having it put under an IS to inspect and to look at it live under a microscope as well. Anything else I need to be concerned with??

 

[phiberoptik]

Here is the actual diamond...

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1111569.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

 

[phiberoptik]

That link is for diamond 2 actually.

 

[aljdewey]

None of these would likely be serious candidates for me. That's not to say they might not be nice stones. However, I prefer stones under 62% depth to maximize spread. I prefer tighter crown/pav relationships.

I gravitate more toward the kinds of numbers on the stones Skippy recommended.

 

[Ellen]

On #2, I didn't think anything looked too bad, til I got to the PA.

Try again? And can they get you in some AGS0 stones to look at?

 

[phiberoptik]

Well I purchased it! Im very excited about it and I feel confident after comparing it to an AGS0 in house side by side. They mixed them up so I couldnt tell which was which and I picked mine over the ideal one at all distances. I also saw both under an IS. The hearts looked perfect and the IS of the one I got looked like it had more color than the ideal one.

Either way, even if my uneducated eye is wrong, I still think my diamond out performed it and thats whats important.

Plus I have 30 days to return it, replace it, etc. So I can keep looking through them for something better.