Seeking advice about three diamonds RB H&A

[Classe Maggie]

Hi all,

I posted about two weeks ago seeking advice about 3 diamonds, and have weeded out two from that batch, and have added another 2 to the foray. I initially wanted something around 1.1 ct, D, at least VVS2. I went to GOG this past saturday to look at these first two diamonds with GF. By the way, Jonathan is Great!

1.13ct, VVS2, D $12,865 6.76 - 6.78 x 4.13
Polish: GIA ~ Excellent
Symmetry: GIA ~ Excellent
Proportions: AGS ~ Ideal
Symmetry ~ Hearts & Arrows
Light Return ~ Excellent
Sarin is 60.9, 55.69 Crown Angle 34.5 Pavilion Angle is 40.9, culet is .4
HCA is 1.4
ex
ex
vg
vg
No flourecence.
Spread is almost perfect, no fat.
Girdle is Medium


Other diamond was
1.223, VVS2, F $12,706 6.87 x 6.94 x 4.25
Polish: AGS ~ Ideal
Symmetry: AGS ~ Ideal
Proportions: AGS ~ Ideal
Symmetry ~ Hearts & Arrows
Light Return ~ Excellent
Sarin is 61.6, 55.9 Crown Angle 34.8 Pavillion Angle is 40.8, culet is .4
HCA is 1.4
ex
ex
ex
vg
Negligible flourecence.
Spread pretty good(?) 6.457
Girdle is Medium

Then, A new one popped up, which I have not looked at yet.
1.453, VS1, F $13,160 7.27 - 7.29 x 4.47
Polish: AGS ~ Ideal
Symmetry: AGS ~ Ideal
Proportions: AGS ~ Ideal
Hearts & Arrows
Light Return ~ Excellent
Sarin is 61.6, 57.3 Crown Angle 34.6 Pavillion Angle is 40.8, culet is .3
HCA is 1.
ex
ex
ex
vg
Negligible flourecence.
Spread pretty the lowest 6.428
Girdle is Sl. Thick

While we were there we looked at another diamond 1.42 which was not H&A. I wanted to observe it for size difference purposes. When all was said and done, She ended up like the 1.223 f, vvs2 more than the 1.13 D, vvs2. She thought it was more sparkly than the 1.13. I thought the 1.13 was a deeper stone than the other one. Is is a fair comparison between two sizes as to which one was more sparkly? I though the 1.42 non H&A was more sparkly than both the other ones. Is it more a function of size and surface area? John was fantastic, but it was getting packed, and he had spent a great deal of time with us already, and I had not thought about these things. We were also able to discern a difference between the colors when they were put up against a white background and observed from the sides, but were not able to while looking at them mounted on the temporary mounts.

So, I am at a loss now as to which diamond to get. The prior posts reall got me thinking, and the shrinkage post here has me thinking too. I plan on getting a setting from Mark Morrell, so I'm thinking of something that will last...she has mentioned that there is a point where it may be too big, and that the 1.42 was close to that spectrum. So I'm thinking that the 1.453 would do it, but although it's the biggest, the specs are the weakest of the three. And although she nor I won't be able to tell the difference, it still matters, although, it's better cut than the 1.13d, and from what I read, cut is the most important.

I don't profess to know it all, but I would love to hear others' points of view, as I'm sure there's something I had not thought about and factored in yet. I thank those who responded to my previous post as it really got me thinking. Not to be corny, but this experience really makes you think about the type of person you are, and the type of person you think your loved on is. We've been together almost 8 years and you would figure I'd know exactly what compromises to make with regard to the diamond. HAHAHA

I apologize for the rambling. As you can see, I'm still talking to meself, trying to figure this out. Thanks in advance for all your help

 

[hoorray]

I think #3 sounds wonderful. The specs are great. I think the spread differences is splitting hairs. Seems to me that that is a rule of thumb, not a hard and fast rule to follow. The crown and pav angles look great, and the diameter has a small variance, which can indicate a tightly cut stone. I like the F VS1 combo much better than the VVS since you are talking about somethig not visible. And last but not least, for not too much more, you get .4mm bigger in diameter, which is definately visible.

Shrinkage is real. I tried on a huge ring recently, and said to the jeweler "oh, thank goodness, it''s too big for my hand." His response was " yeah, for a week...

". There is some truth to that, so erring on the larger size is a good thing if this is a forever ring, not a stepping stone.

If the third stone is also from Jonathon, I would call him and have him give you his opinion of how it compares to the others.

 

[turismo]

What is "spread" ?

 

[Patty]

I would go with #3 for sure. An F color is not going to show any color at all and a VS1 should be totally eye clean. The larger size appeals to me especially when you are not giving up anything visually.

As for the non H&A looking more sparkly to you, I''m not sure why that was the case. Do you know why it was not ideal? Was it more shallow or deep than ideal? Some people have noticed that a more shallow stone may appear whiter in some lighting but it does not show the variety of colors that an ideal cut shows.

 

[Lord Summerisle]

hmm... im sure i replyed to this yesterday.. hey ho.. could have been a mistake my end.

Anyways...

just remember... dont over look one point... the person your buysing for... you mention that you''ve seen a 1.13, 1.223 and a 1.42... and that she liked the 1.223 the best out of the 3... that should count for something i think...

and like you said - you couldnt decern a difference in colour when viewed set in a mount - so really its not something that you''ve got to worry about. I think alot of it is while loose the specs are kinda important, once set... its pritty much down to size and sparkle, since the inclusions at this level are virtually invisable, and well cut RBs hide their colour well (even down to I and J it seems from the pictures posted up around here) so that they face up icewhite. But decide where your at.. is size more important than sparkle? but then im sure all those you''ve been looking at sparkle far more than most of hte rocks on the market - hey this is GoG we''re talking about. can you go back and compare those 3? the major diffence between them seems to be the size of the table (the 1.453 having hte biggest) and i think might have a slight bearing on its look.

which ever you choose its going to be purdy

 

[Colored Gemstone Nut]

Date: 2/24/2005 7:43:47 PM
Author: turismo

What is ''spread'' ?

Turismo:

Spread refers to the diameter of a diamond versus the depth percentage. When a diamond has good "spread" it means that for the stones weight measured in cts., the apparent size (diameter) measured in mm is not less than it should be.

When a stone has a bad spread it could mean that the diamond is too thin or really "overly spready", The depth is to shallow which might give it a bigger look but this also affects how the stone will return light.

Conversly, A stone which is too deep or has too much depth will hide a lot of weight and will not appear as large as it should for stones in the same weight category, decreasing the overall diameter or size of the stone. It will look smaller in relation to other stones cut properly in the same weight class.

Hope this Helps..Check out the Tutorial in this forum for other questions as well as the Diamond Glossary...

 

[Classe Maggie]

Hi all,

Finally made my mind and got the 1.453 f VSI from Johnathan at Good old Gold. I wanna thank this forum and all those who have provided me with invaluable advice and insight. At first, I was more concerned about high color and clarity and was almost set on getting the 1.13 d vvs2. However, as some of you suggested, I took a ride down to GOG and took a look at the diamonds, and funny thing was girlfriend liked the 1.223 f vvs2 better than the 1.13 d vvs2. The Isee2 score was higher on the 1.223. The 1.453''s Isee2 score is even higher than the 1.223, and it''s brilliance scope score is better as well. So it was a matter of size over better clarity, which I could not perceive. Though I could perceive a difference in size, so I went with size, with ever looming fear of shrinkage deep in the recesses of my mind.

The diamond is now in the hands of Mark Morrell. All and all, I am very fortunate that I found this site. I, like most others, went to Tiffany''s first. I thought that their ring was very nice, the setting was first rate, but so was the price. This H&A thing was all new to me, but I find it to be very cool. I believe by looking at Mark''s photos and threads on his work that his settings are first rate, so I got pretty much everything I wanted.

My cousin is also looking now as he wishes to propose this year as well. I''ve already told him about this site, and so he''s already a leg up on me in his search. Also told him about GOG, as I thought I got terrific service there, and a great stone at a great price. Only after one visit, Johnathan still remembered my name, and my girlfriend''s name, which is a tough feat considering our names. Thanks Johnathan. My local audio guy, after various visits and plopping down over 15k in audio gear can''t even remember my name. lol

And thank you all. Keep up the good work.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Congratulations on your purchase - you discovered 2 great gems... Your diamond and the friendly Sir RhinoKnight!