Is AGS000 enough to go on?

[dennis366]

I have a 1.76 round on hold that has a July 2005 AGS000 cert. Unfortunately I cannot make out the crown or pavillion angles/depths from the small resolution cert scan. It''s a J VVS2, 62.1 depth, 56 table, and the girdle is 1.4-4.0. Is this enough information for me to go on?

I''m very happy w/ everything about the diamond so far. I''ve been told there may be quite a bit of variation in the girdle b/c of the range given, can someone explain what that means?

Do I still need the angles to run this through the calculators, or can I trust the grading and opinion of the sellers?

 

[JulieN]

If C>35, P>41, may not perform as well when dirty.

 

[dennis366]

I just got the numbers. Looks pretty terrific to me, any other feedback anyone can give on this stone?

1.764ct J VVS2
7.71 - 7.77 x 4.80
Table: 56%
Depth: 62.1%
Crown: 34.5* - 15.0%
Pavilion: 41.0* - 43.3%

HCA: 1.9 - Excellent (Light: Ex; Fire, Scint, Spread: VG)


In contrast, would any once suggest I take the following instead? Both are similarly priced (within $600) and AGS 000 cut. This second one is an H&A, I''m not sure if the first one is or not.

1.722ct J SI1
7.77 - 7.79 x 4.71
Table: 55%
Depth: 60.6%
Crown: 34.8* - 15.5%
Pavilion: 40.7* - 42.9%

HCA: 1.0 - Excellent (Light, Fire, Scint: EX; Spread: VG)

With my limited knowledge, I''m guessing that the 2nd one will appear equally as big b/c of a smaller overall depth, though does the 1% smaller table offset that? The second seems to have a slightly better HCA result, but the 1st is 3 steps better in clarity for very little extra, and I''m afraid two inclusions on the table face of the 2nd may drive me crazy if I can make them out in person.

 

[coda72]

I know almost nothing about round stones, but I would take the second one as long as it''s eyeclean. The numbers on this one just look better to me, and I wouldn''t pay for VVS2 clarity.

 

[Lorelei]

I too would choose the second diamond, the first is a little too deep and with the clarity, I wouldn''t go for VVS either if the S1 is eyeclean. However they are both good diamonds, you have to consider your comfort levels.

 

[XChick03]

I would take the second one if its eyeclean. It may be slightly smaller in carats, but it has a slightly larger spread. Plus the fire and scint is better.

 

[diamondlil]

I also vote #2 hands down. I like the pav angle better, and I would not pay for VVS2 clarity. The first one is 62.1% deep so the spread is the slightly smaller than the second stone too.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 2/13/2006 7:31:11 PM
Author: dennis366
I just got the numbers. Looks pretty terrific to me, any other feedback anyone can give on this stone?

1.764ct J VVS2
7.71 - 7.77 x 4.80
Table: 56%
Depth: 62.1%
Crown: 34.5* - 15.0%
Pavilion: 41.0* - 43.3%

HCA: 1.9 - Excellent (Light: Ex; Fire, Scint, Spread: VG)


In contrast, would any once suggest I take the following instead? Both are similarly priced (within $600) and AGS 000 cut. This second one is an H&A, I''m not sure if the first one is or not.

1.722ct J SI1
7.77 - 7.79 x 4.71
Table: 55%
Depth: 60.6%
Crown: 34.8* - 15.5%
Pavilion: 40.7* - 42.9%

HCA: 1.0 - Excellent (Light, Fire, Scint: EX; Spread: VG)

With my limited knowledge, I''m guessing that the 2nd one will appear equally as big b/c of a smaller overall depth, though does the 1% smaller table offset that? The second seems to have a slightly better HCA result, but the 1st is 3 steps better in clarity for very little extra, and I''m afraid two inclusions on the table face of the 2nd may drive me crazy if I can make them out in person.

You''ve received good advice, particularly if the SI1 is eye-clean as has been voiced. The difference in size (both spread and table) is insignificant. The angle combination & crown height of the second diamond is more appealing to me. An ideal-scope image would help nail this down as a great choice, if available.