Hoping for some advice, as we near a decision.

[stermag]

Firstly, I am really glad to have found this resource and while I have learned a lot already simply by reading, I''m hoping to get some advice on a couple more specific questions.

I am looking at a number of diamonds at this point, but will make an effort to focus on only one or two at a time, as to not overwhelm you good folks.

First, our criteria: we are looking for a RB, ideal cut diamond in the colorless range (D-F). It may dip as low as SI2 in clarity provided that it is perfectly eye-clean. We would also like to be at or above the 7mm diameter point, which (roughly) translates to 1.25c+. We love fluorescence, but see it purely as a bonus (i.e. I will not turn down and otherwise perfect stone just because it doesn''t exhibit it). Also, our budget (for the stone itself) is a fairly firm $9500.

One of the diamonds I''ve been entertaining is the following:

CANDIDATE #1:
----------------------------------
Report: GIA
Shape: Round
Carat: 1.52
Color: E
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 60.4
Table: 58
Crown Angle: 31.1
Crown %: 12.8
Pavilion Angle: 40.5
Pavilion %: 42.6
Girdle: Medium-Thick-Faceted
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Culet: Very Small
Fluorescence: Strong Blue
Measurements: 7.35-7.39X4.45
---------------------------------

It scores a 1.9 on the HCA, with "good" light return, "excellent" fire and scintillation, and "very good" spread. The ideal scope shows only minor leakage and the magnified image appears very clean, although I am in the process of confirming this. It also has strong fluor, which might be a bonus.

I guess my main concern is the crown angle. Am I correct in this? Is there anything else I should be wary of? Does this generally look like a good bet or am I better off dropping down in size a bit and perfecting the cut?

Thank you in advance for your thoughts and comments!

 

[stermag]

To give everyone something to compare CANDIDATE #1 against, here''s another option which is being considered:

CANDIDATE #2
----------------------------------------
Report: AGS
Shape: A Cut Above H&A
Carat: 1.258
Color: D
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 61.7
Table: 55
Crown Angle: 34.9
Crown %: 15.5
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 43
Girdle: Medium-Faceted
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 6.92-6.95X4.28
---------------------------------

This baby would be perfect if not for the diameter being every-so-slightly below our goal, and the complete lack of fluor. It has an HCA of 1.5 with light return, fire and scintillation all "excellent" and "very good" spread. Despite the clarity of SI1, it appears to be eye-clean (to be confirmed).

Is there anything that doesn''t quite look right on this one? Would you choose this over CANDIDATE #1? Obviously, I''m trading a bit of size for these specs, and bidding farewell to my beloved fluorescence, but should this be enough to sway me in the other direction?

 

[Shay37]

Date: 12/6/2005 6:11:40 PM
Author: Magda
To give everyone something to compare CANDIDATE #1 against, here''s another option which is being considered:

CANDIDATE #2
----------------------------------------
Report: AGS
Shape: A Cut Above H&A
Carat: 1.258
Color: D
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 61.7
Table: 55
Crown Angle: 34.9
Crown %: 15.5
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 43
Girdle: Medium-Faceted
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 6.92-6.95X4.28
---------------------------------

This baby would be perfect if not for the diameter being every-so-slightly below our goal, and the complete lack of fluor. It has an HCA of 1.5 with light return, fire and scintillation all ''excellent'' and ''very good'' spread. Despite the clarity of SI1, it appears to be eye-clean (to be confirmed).

Is there anything that doesn''t quite look right on this one? Would you choose this over CANDIDATE #1? Obviously, I''m trading a bit of size for these specs, and bidding farewell to my beloved fluorescence, but should this be enough to sway me in the other direction?

Is there anything that doesn''t quite look right on this one?

no.

Would you choose this over CANDIDATE #1?

yes.

but should this be enough to sway me in the other direction?

yes.

Sorry about the yellow. Can''t make it stop.

I pasted your questions above my answers.

Love the #2 stone that you posted.

shay

 

[belle]

i don''t like the 31.1ca/40.5pa combo of the first stone at all. i would easily pick the second stone over that one. easily.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/6/2005 6:11:40 PM
Author: Magda

Obviously, I'm trading a bit of size for these specs, and bidding farewell to my beloved fluorescence, but should this be enough to sway me in the other direction?

Allot more folk would call 'medium' fluorescence their beloved... Are you sure (i.e. have you seen some) ?

Between D and E the difference is academic (and financial)

more than anything.

Since you lined these up, I am assuming you have no strong feelings about the pattern inside a H&A diamond...

... so... any chance you could get to see the E color? Maybe that is not the sort of thing to buy blindly, if it were for me I'd know what to say - for someone else, seeing is believing

Unless you are under some tight time constraint, it may just be feasible to take a look at the loose stone. WF's return policy will serve for that and it will not be the first time either.


My 2C


(PS.. sorry for the late editing...)

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/6/2005 6:25:03 PM
Author: belle
i don''t like the 31.1ca/40.5pa combo of the first stone at all. i would easily pick the second stone over that one. easily.

What she said, so I say.

 

[stermag]

You are all wonderfull to reply so quickly. As you rightly note, I have not actually seen a "strongly" fluor diamond in person, but I have seen a medium. I gather that perhaps I should, as the difference might be pronounced.

If only I could find something equally wonderful to the 1.258 ACA but just a touch bigger (so that horrible voice in my head stops saying "but it''s under 7mm"), I think it would be a done deal.

 

[belle]

oooohhh...those head voices are the worst!

i'm working on them to let me get a 1.5ct. j color stone but, so far they won't let me go beyond a 'g'.

in your case however, 6.95mm is so ridiculously close to 7mm that i can guarantee your eyes will convince your head that the stone is indeed 7mm and once you see this baby, you will never hear from those awful dissenting voices again.

the difference between 6.95 and 7mm is not even remotely discernable.

 

[recran]

Hmm... I am a size ho. I''d go with the first one. But I''d want to see the Ideal scope before definitively saying that. Oh, okay. I found it. Ya, I''d buy that one over the second one if I had your budget/color requirements. Of course, this is what I ended up getting. (Hehe, had to share it again cuz I lurve it.) Wait a minute... Do you have a time crunch on your hands?? If not, why not give it some more time? Maybe my stone in your color will turn up within your budget.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/6/2005 6:05:25 PM
Author:Magda

RB, ideal cut diamond in the colorless range (D-F).

It may dip as low as SI2 in clarity provided that it is perfectly eye-clean.

We would also like to be at or above the 7mm diameter point, which (roughly) translates to 1.25c+.

We love fluorescence, but see it purely as a bonus (i.e. I will not turn down and otherwise perfect stone just because it doesn't exhibit it).

Also, our budget (for the stone itself) is a fairly firm $9500.

Looking for the above specs... this one turned up. It may be one of the new AGS0 or not - none of the sellers listing it have more than those stats. You will have to ask, I guess.

WF also list it, but the link to their page is dead.


It was the D, AGS Ideal finish and ... 1.5cts mark cleared below 10k that made me post, obviously

Weight: 1.53 cts
Size: 7.54x7.51x4.48
Color: D
Clarity:SI2
Depth: 59.5%
Table: 59%
Lab: AGS
Girdle: 1.6-2.4
Culet:no
Polish / Symmetry: id / id
Fluorescence no
Price: $9703

About the 31/40 angles of the E... That did not use to be a rave-making sort of thing around here because it is not quite where the old AGS0 range was (AGS updated their Ideal cut standards earlier this year). from the 34/40.5 old bulls-eye to this there is a bit of difference. It shows in WF's pictures too, and if the stone had perfect optical symmetry it would have shown more - some darkness under the table when the stone is looked at very close up or shadowed. Big deal? Bad for everyone? I don't know what to say there because this is not a monster.

Perhaps 'darkness' sounds bad when said about a diamond. The H&A have it all in the neatly aligned arrows - some do not like even those to be too wide. The slightly random symmetry in that diamond may actually help. Anyway, I am getting over my head here. There is a little clip about diamonds in the shade that may spell things out better than I can: look HERE (calle ''Head obstruction')

It must be obvious I am not an expert, trying to piece together what slightly conflicting expert advice has to say.

My 2C - if even.

Best of luck!

 

[Kim N]

I agree with everyone else. Candidate #2 all the way.

 

[stermag]

Sometimes I'm amazed how quickly decisions are made in my head. Sometimes I cannot believe how slowly...

Either way, I think CANDIDATE #1 is out. In its place, I introduce another (shown side by side with our current leader). Your opinions, as always, will be greatly appreciated:

CURRENT LEADER:
------------------------
Report: AGS
Shape: A Cut Above H&A
Carat: 1.258
Color: D
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 61.7
Table: 55
Crown Angle: 34.9
Crown %: 15.5
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 43
Girdle: Medium-Faceted
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 6.92-6.95X4.28
---------------------------

CANDIDATE #3
------------------------
Report: AGS
Shape: Round Ideal Cut
Carat: 1.520
Color: F
Clarity: SI2
Depth: 61.1
Table: 56.5
Crown Angle: 34.9
Crown %: 15.2
Pavilion Angle: 40.9
Pavilion %: 43.1
Girdle: T-M -Faceted
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 7.46x7.42x4.55
---------------------------


Now, let us add that the price is virtually the same, and on the 1.52 carat above (of SI2) clarity, I am in the process of determining whether or not it is eye-clean. The inclusions on the AGS report don't look overly dangerous, although the notes do add "Additional twinning wisps and surface graining are not shown". The grading report on the 1.258 HCA makes no mention of such things.

So, place your bets...

 

[Kim N]

I like candidate #3 too, and you get the larger size with that one.

 

[Kaleigh]

If #3 is eye clean, it may be the one. Have to say I do love the current leader.

Let us know what they say about #3.

 

[diamondlil]

I agree, if #3 is eye-clean, then that''s the one I would choose.

 

[Shay37]

I do love the current leader, but the #3 contender looks yummy as well. Hard to ignore that bump in size. So #3 it is.

shay