Stone Comparison

[leblaner6881]

I have two stones both from reputable dealers and both GIA certified... I would like opinions on what I should choose

#1
Round Cut (Ideal)
1.20 carat
Girdle is Med to STK
Polish - EX, Symmetry - EX

#2
Round Cut (Ideal)
1.22 carat
Girdle is Thin to Medium
Polish - VG, Symmetry - VG

Now other than the differences noted above the diamonds are identical (save a .06 % depth difference, but both in ideal range). The price differential is $500, #1 being more expensive. I am leaning towards #1 but would like some outsider input. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[JulieN]

crown and pav angles? depth, table? Ideal Scope? sure, they're both "ideal," but there are different varieties of ideal

 

[in-situ]

JulieN is right on the money. There is not one Ideal (by the way the correct terminology (GIA) is Excellent), but a range known as Ideal.

Initial reaction is that stone number 1 is the better stone as polish and symmetry are both excellent as opposed to very good on stone number 2. Also the girdle at medium to slightly thick is considered to be better than a girdle of thin to medium. I have been led to believe that GIA do not actually physically "measure" the girdle, their judgement is a visual one.

Providing that the crown angle is not greater than 35 degrees, the pavilion angle is not more than 42 degrees and the diamond is not too deep (more than 63 %) and that the table is not too large or too small, there can be little doubt that stone number 1 is the better stone.

Having said that, most lay-people would very likely be unable to tell the difference between the 2 diamonds (working on the assumption that all factors are equal (save for the girdle, polish & symmetry). So, if you want the absolute best number 1 looks like the one to go for, although from a monetary point of view is it worth US$500 more? Simply impossible to answer without having all of the info.

 

[JulieN]

in-situ, are you in the trade? welcome to PS, btw.

I would prefer a PA no more than 41, although I've yet to hear of a woman throwing a fit upon a receiving a diamond with a 40.9 PA.

 

[leblaner6881]

the depth on #1 is 61.2 % and on #2 is 60.6%, the table on both is 55% i don''t have the other info

 

[JulieN]

Do you have the GIA report numbers?

if you do, go to http://www.gia.edu/reportcheck/ and you may be able to find the numbers there

 

[leblaner6881]

sorry for the delay...

stone #1
Depth: 61.2 %
Table: 55 %
Crown Angle: 34°
Crown Height: 15 %
Pavilion Angle: 40.4°
Pavilion Depth: 42.5 %
Star length: 60 %
Lower Half: 80 %
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Culet: None

Stone #2
Additional Information
Crown Angle: 34°
Crown Height: 15 %
Pavilion Angle: 41°
Pavilion Depth: 43 %
Star length: 45 %
Lower Half: 80 %

The only other issue I have is on stone #1 there is under the comments section this phrase: Additional clouds are not shown. Surface graining is not shown. Whereas Stone #2 has none... So should I still go with Stone #1

 

[JulieN]

40.4 is a bit shallow. I think 40.5 is a cut-off for GIA EX

For additional clouds not shown, what is the clarity grading?

so, it depends on several things. what type of setting is it? is she near sighted?

 

[Mara]

Date: 6/8/2006 6:42:53 PM
Author: JulieN
crown and pav angles? depth, table? Ideal Scope? sure, they're both 'ideal,' but there are different varieties of ideal

Julie just curious as to how you could know that the stones are both ideal with the super limited information that the original poster gave?

To me reading that initial post of his, I would not have though they are definitely both ideal. There's really no definitive indicator of that in any of the initial information he gave IMHO.

 

[JulieN]

he said they were in the OP

By saying "there are different varieties," I was trying to imply that one person's ideal is not necessarily the same as another person's definition, as well as the usage of quotation marks around "ideal" implied it was his definition, and not mine.

 

[leblaner6881]

the stones'' cuts are both very good... sorry for the mix up, but the clarity is VS2 on both, color G, it is going to be in a platinum setting with pave around the sides and a "hidden diamond" on both sides of the bezel (a la scott kay, but being made custom)

 

[Mara]

Date: 6/10/2006 1:49:00 PM
Author: JulieN
he said they were in the OP

Yes, I saw that but that does not mean anything to me. Lots of vendors *call* their stones ideal...to me what will determine if the stone is ideal or not will be more information than what was initially given.

Leblaner, wow tough call on the stones. To me I don't like a slightly thick girdle on the first stone, but I also don't like a pav angle of 41 on the second stone.

So I'd probably choose neither diamond as I like EX EX *and* thin-med but I also want a pav angle under 41. I'd like a mish-mash of both stones I guess. Can you keep looking?

If these are you two absolutely final choices and you had to choose one, can you get idealscope images to show light return on both stones? Some would feel that 40.4 is too low of a pav angle, but some would also feel that 34 is too low of a crown angle. Though we have seen beautiful stones which fall in both categories on here in the past.

So if you can get images of the stones or idealscope/lightscope images it would be helpful. Have you seen either stone in person to be able to say what they look like to your eye?

 

[JulieN]

Date: 6/10/2006 1:53:00 PM
Author: Mara

Yes, I saw that but that does not mean anything to me. Lots of vendors *call* their stones ideal...to me what will determine if the stone is ideal or not will be more information than what was initially given.

My point, exactly.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 6/10/2006 1:50:35 PM
Author: leblaner6881
the stones'' cuts are both very good... sorry for the mix up, but the clarity is VS2 on both, color G, it is going to be in a platinum setting with pave around the sides and a ''hidden diamond'' on both sides of the bezel (a la scott kay, but being made custom)

With a VS2 clarity, you needn''t worry about the additional clouds not shown-they won''t affect the performance.

To be absolutely clear, it is a bezel, and not a basket?

 

[Dancing Fire]

just going by the #''s...i would pick #2,i know it''s only VG,VG but you can''t see the difference anyway.

 

[leblaner6881]

if the bezel is the area right under the solitare setting, then that is where it is at

 

[leblaner6881]

i have also heard that on round solitaire stones med-stk would be the best way to go because any thinness could possibly chip depending on where it is on the girdle... also, i have looked at both stones and they are very similar, obviously, but the difference i have is also the making of the setting... the place with stone #1 is making the setting on site whereas stone #2 is having the setting made elsewhere. lastly, i don''t think i can get a much better quality stone on my budget (stone #1 is $8000 and stone #2 is $ 7750, where the other $250 is being compensated for on the cost of the setting)... does anyone thing I can get a better stone for $8000 total (after taxes)?

 

[JulieN]

Under 8K
http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/round-ideal-cut-cut-diamond-1829037.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/a-cut-above-h-a-cut-diamond-2415710.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/a-cut-above-h-a-cut-diamond-2318215.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/round-ideal-cut-cut-diamond-2362068.htm

Thin girdle is fine. Ring tutorial with pictures: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ring-tutorial.43761/= a bezel completely surrounds a stone's girdle in metal.

 

[Dancing Fire]

leblaner

what kind of price are we talking about here? is this a online vendor?

http://www.goodoldgold.com/classic.php?page=forsale.htm

GOG has a couple of G VS2 and a G SI1 in that size range,that you might want to look at.

 

[leblaner6881]

sorry, but those not diamonds that i would consider superior to the one I have. Understandably, some of their characteristics are better, but 3 of the 4 are "H" color, which to me is probably the most important factor and below my stone''s "G", and the one that is "G" is an SI1, along with two of the "H"s being an SI1, which is below my VS2. What would be your reason that these stones are superior, and in the end most of these would cost more than my diamond because of a 5% sales tax.

 

[leblaner6881]

not an online vendor, and that''s another plus because that way I can have my setting custom manufactured.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 6/10/2006 2:23:01 PM
Author: leblaner6881
sorry, but those not diamonds that i would consider superior to the one I have. Understandably, some of their characteristics are better, but 3 of the 4 are 'H' color, which to me is probably the most important factor and below my stone's 'G', and the one that is 'G' is an SI1, along with two of the 'H's being an SI1, which is below my VS2. What would be your reason that these stones are superior, and in the end most of these would cost more than my diamond because of a 5% sales tax.

No sales tax on online purchases, unless you report them yourself?

None of them have a PA higher than 40.9. Stone 2, if indeed going in a bezel setting...it's not going to look bad. I would go for this one out of the two you picked. There are good/better choices out there, though.

None of them have a PA of lower than 40.6. Stone 1 (40.4) will probably look dark when viewed up close (which is why I asked if she's near-sighted.)

And of course, all H&A or near H&A, accompanied by a great custom bench.

Sorry about all the edits, I mixed up the stones.

 

[Mara]

Date: 6/10/2006 2:23:01 PM
Author: leblaner6881
sorry, but those not diamonds that i would consider superior to the one I have. Understandably, some of their characteristics are better, but 3 of the 4 are 'H' color, which to me is probably the most important factor and below my stone's 'G', and the one that is 'G' is an SI1, along with two of the 'H's being an SI1, which is below my VS2. What would be your reason that these stones are superior, and in the end most of these would cost more than my diamond because of a 5% sales tax.

Just an FYI but an 'exceptionally cut' H will probably look better visually to the average viewer than a 'very good' cut G...great cut quality can mask a little color, make a stone shine brighter or give edge to edge light return, etc. These stones that Julie posted have a far superior cut than your selections.

You could also always buy a stone elsewhere and have your local person create the setting. Lots of people do that on here. Good luck.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/10/2006 2:30:19 PM
Author: JulieN

Date: 6/10/2006 2:23:01 PM
Author: leblaner6881
sorry, but those not diamonds that i would consider superior to the one I have. Understandably, some of their characteristics are better, but 3 of the 4 are ''H'' color, which to me is probably the most important factor and below my stone''s ''G'', and the one that is ''G'' is an SI1, along with two of the ''H''s being an SI1, which is below my VS2. What would be your reason that these stones are superior, and in the end most of these would cost more than my diamond because of a 5% sales tax.

No sales tax on online purchases, unless you report them yourself?

None of them have a PA higher than 40.9. Stone 2, if indeed going in a bezel setting...it''s not going to look bad. I would go for this one out of the two you picked. There are good/better choices out there, though.

None of them have a PA of lower than 40.6. Stone 1 (40.4) will probably look dark when viewed up close (which is why I asked if she''s near-sighted.)

And of course, all H&A or near H&A, accompanied by a great custom bench.

Sorry about all the edits, I mixed up the stones.

Very wise counsel Julie.

We''ve noted this phenomena at roughly the 40.6 threshold, but when at that angle depends upon both focal length and the crown angle that is coupled with that pavilion.

Regards,