Calling All Cut Experts -- Which is Better?

[Demelza]

Please bear in mind that this is all hypothetical, of course

, but which set of specs would you prefer (all other things being equal)?

Option 1:

Depth %: 60.8

Table %: 55.7

Crown Angle: 34.9

Pavilion Angle: 40.8

Girdle: Thin to Medium

HCA 1.4

Option 2:

Depth %: 61.4

Table %: 55.7

Crown Angle: 34.4

Pavilion Angle: 40.7

Girdle: Thin to Medium

HCA 1.1

Assume both have ideal symmetry, polish, and proportions. Which would you choose with the info provided?

 

[JulieN]

Demelza, I suspect the hypothetical nature of your question, because stone 2 gets a .9 HCA when I do it, so either you entered it wrong or you're getting the number from somewhere else.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think the diameter is important, too. Both of those can be great, so I don''t see choosing on that much info alone. Need to see IdealScopes, etc.

 

[strmrdr]

would need to see more info.
hearts and IS images.
Angles wise they are both good as long as whats in the averages is good.

 

[Kaleigh]

Hypothetical??? Yeah right, LOL!!!!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/25/2006 10:40:46 PM
Author: JulieN
Demelza, I suspect the hypothetical nature of your question, because stone 2 gets a .9 HCA when I do it, so either you entered it wrong or you're getting the number from somewhere else.

FYI.....there is a difference between the scores when you enter the numbers manually vs. looking up stones on the cut quality of PS.

If you enter them manually, the HCA *assumes* a medium girdle....which affect the score.

If you find the diamond by cut quality in the listings, though, the HCA knows what the girdle is and factors it in.

So.......long story short, it could still be hypothetical if she is perusing stones by cut quality, as I often do.

(That doesn't mean I really believe it IS hypothetical; just that it *could* be. LOL)

 

[Demelza]

Date: 6/25/2006 10:53:04 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 6/25/2006 10:40:46 PM

So.......long story short, it could still be hypothetical if she is perusing stones by cut quality, as I often do.

ETA Don't know why my message is in Alj's quote box.

Ya, ya, that's what I'm doing! Exactly! SEE!!! Totally hypothetical.

The diameter for the first stone is: 8.57 x 8.61 x 5.23

The diameter for the second stone is: 8.23 x 8.17 x 5.03

Don't know if that info helps, but there it is.

I'm just wanting to make sure that there isn't anything glaringly wrong with either set of specs.

 

[C Smith]

The crown angle on number two is closer to the old ideal of 34.5 . I''m going with #2 to maximize light return as both stones pavilions are off of 40.75. I''d still rather see the diamonds in person to make a judgement call if it were my money but that isn''t always possible.

 

[Lorelei]

Hmm Dem - carat weight??

Colour and clarities??

 

[belle]

i like the first one. the spread is nice and the angles are great but an idealscope image would be the deciding factor.

 

[Demelza]

Okay, perhaps my question is too vague. Here are the links to the actual stones I'm HYPOTHETICALLY considering. Have at 'em, guys!

Stone 1

Stone 2

Stone 3

Keep in mind I'm going for a super mind clean thing here when it comes to cut, clarity, and, of course, color. This is my last chance to get this right, so I've got to be meticulous about this. I am finding out today whether the SI1 stone is eyeclean, so put that aside for now (although it may be that I need VS to feel totally mind clean -- a curse, I know). Thanks!!

ETA Would a less than stellar BScope deter anyone??

 

[strmrdr]

#3 would have been my pick but its sold.
between the other 2 id take #2

 

[Demelza]

Date: 6/26/2006 10:03:42 AM
Author: strmrdr
#3 would have been my pick but its sold.

between the other 2 id take #2

#3 is not sold -- it''s on hold...for a certain hypothetical person. Can you say why you would choose #3? Is it the numbers, the value of the SI1, the size? Thanks!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/26/2006 10:09:11 AM
Author: Demelza

Date: 6/26/2006 10:03:42 AM

Author: strmrdr

#3 would have been my pick but its sold.


between the other 2 id take #2

#3 is not sold -- it''s on hold...for a certain hypothetical person. Can you say why you would choose #3? Is it the numbers, the value of the SI1, the size? Thanks!

bang for the buck with discount and size.
its a very nice ACA classic.
Would check on it being eyeclean of course as part of the final decision.

 

[Demelza]

Thanks, Storm. Not to be a pest, but can you say why you''d choose #2 over #1? What do you think of the fact #2 didnt'' score VH in white light and scintillation on the BScope?

Just a general question: Is it truly possible to get a completely eyeclean SI1 in a stone of this size? And when I say eyeclean, I mean that you don''t ever see anything in it from any angle. Perhaps unreasonable, but I need to know what to expect. There is one dark carbon spot in my current AGS VS2 and I can see it with my naked eye from about 6 or 7 inches away.

 

[aljdewey]

I''d pick #3, #1, #2.

#3 is a the clear choice to me for the same reasons Storm mentioned.

I prefer the numbers of #1 over #2, but it''s personal preference. I prefer a bit less depth and a bit more spread. #1 has the same diameter as #2 for nearly $1k less (when you factor in bank wire prices for both). #1 is a better value to me than #2.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/26/2006 10:37:00 AM
Author: Demelza
Thanks, Storm. Not to be a pest, but can you say why you''d choose #2 over #1? What do you think of the fact #2 didnt'' score VH in white light and scintillation on the BScope?


Just a general question: Is it truly possible to get a completely eyeclean SI1 in a stone of this size? And when I say eyeclean, I mean that you don''t ever see anything in it from any angle. Perhaps unreasonable, but I need to know what to expect. There is one dark carbon spot in my current AGS VS2 and I can see it with my naked eye from about 6 or 7 inches away.

#1 and #2 would score about the same on the b-scope its a wash.

yes its possible.. ask .. but if your seeing vs2 inclusions there is a chance you would see something in all 3.

 

[Mara]

#3 because i don''t think you should go smaller, your insano brain would miss the size.

 

[CareBear]

Can anyone explain to me why #1 got a cut grade of very good and not excellent? Looks like a perfectly good stone to me!
I don't understand the comments on the GIA cert.

Dem, don't you have a 8.6 diameter right now? Hypothetically, if you were to change stones, I don't think you should get a smaller size. Is the I-color bothering you? Is that why you are looking at G stones?

 

[Demelza]

Date: 6/26/2006 3:16:08 PM
Author: CareBear
Can anyone explain to me why #1 got a cut grade of very good and not excellent? Looks like a perfectly good stone to me!

I don't understand the comments on the GIA cert.


Dem, don't you have a 8.6 diameter right now? Hypothetically, if you were to change stones, I don't think you should get a smaller size. Is the I-color bothering you? Is that why you are looking at G stones?

I don't understand the GIA cut grade system either.

I agree that getting a smaller stone isn't ideal (no pun intended), but sometimes something has got to give. I'm thinking of changing stones for several reasons. The color really does bother me as much as I don't want it to. In a smaller stone, maybe an I would be okay with me, but not in a stone of this size. I know people say, well, color isn't bad, it just is, and I totally understand that, but, for me, I want to see crisp whiteness from all angles, not just the top. I'm also not very happy with this particular VS2 (I still wouldn't pay for a VS1, I just be more careful about the nature of the inclusions in the VS2 or SI1 stone). I can see the carbon spot from the side and top. It's not very noticeable and I do have great vision, but it bugs me nonetheless. And I also can't help but feel that maybe the cut isn't as top notch as it could be. So, it's a combination of legitimate color/clarity conerns and mind clean issues when it comes to cut. Nothing has happened yet, though, so we'll see.

 

[C Smith]

Date: 6/26/2006 3:16:08 PM
Author: CareBear
Can anyone explain to me why #1 got a cut grade of very good and not excellent? Looks like a perfectly good stone to me!
I don''t understand the comments on the GIA cert.

Dem, don''t you have a 8.6 diameter right now? Hypothetically, if you were to change stones, I don''t think you should get a smaller size. Is the I-color bothering you? Is that why you are looking at G stones?

I can only guess that the crown angle is a considerable way off the ideal of 34.5 degrees. All else seems okay. Are there any objective comments on symmetry or polish maybe?

 

[JulieN]

under stone 1, it says that cut grade is based on brillianteering of the half-facets. the CA is 34.5

 

[Kaleigh]

I wonder if #3 is eye clean??

 

[C Smith]

Date: 6/26/2006 3:43:13 PM
Author: JulieN
under stone 1, it says that cut grade is based on brillianteering of the half-facets. the CA is 34.5

Sorry,
I was still commenting on the two sets of stats posted at the top of the thread

. You must forgive me, I''m under the influence of prescription pain meds for a busted knee and my thinking is more dis-jointed than usual at the moment

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I hate to say this, but since you sound like me, I couldn''t handle the SI1 inclusions of #3. They are right in the middle and I can easily see them in the magnified photo. I think I''d take #2 because I like the IS/Diamxray better on that one than #1.

 

[CareBear]

Dem, if it's the inclusions that bother you, I don't think the G Si1 will be anymore eye clean than ur current. The inclusions aren't that scattered. Now you got me kinda worried cos I'm trying to decide on an upgrade to a I VS2, from a G. I'm so worried that the color is gonna bother me. Though from the pics of your current rock, I can't really see any color.
Why don't you wait for an H?

 

[Demelza]

Date: 6/26/2006 4:51:59 PM
Author: CareBear
Dem, if it's the inclusions that bother you, I don't think the G Si1 will be anymore eye clean than ur current. The inclusions aren't that scattered. Now you got me kinda worried cos I'm trying to decide on an upgrade to a I VS2, from a G. I'm so worried that the color is gonna bother me. Though from the pics of your current rock, I can't really see any color.

Why don't you wait for an H?

Oh, I'm sorry. I don't want to worry you at all. This is SUCH a personal thing and SO subjective. And it depends on the stone. Maybe my I is closer to a J than an H. It's a gorgeous stone and, most of the time, looks very white! But from the side, I don't like seeing color. There's no real reason for it and someone else might not even notice. I would not dissuade anyone from a well cut I -- it's just not my thing! Just make sure you see enough stones and really examine your upgrade before committing to it. There's never any way to be 100% sure before buying anything, but I think somewhere deep down I knew in my heart that I wasn't really okay with the color but talked myself out of it because I wanted the size. Looking back, I kind of wish I had just gone for both and been done with it. So, be honest with yourself and that's all you can do. What size are you looking at?

ETA G is really my sweet spot. This is the last diamond for me for a VERY long time (if not forever), so no more compromises for me. I'm going to go all the way, be done with it, and move on. I loved my G, VS2 1.5 and that is really where I think my true comfort zone is.

 

[Demelza]

Date: 6/26/2006 3:49:52 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I hate to say this, but since you sound like me, I couldn''t handle the SI1 inclusions of #3. They are right in the middle and I can easily see them in the magnified photo. I think I''d take #2 because I like the IS/Diamxray better on that one than #1.

I spoke to Brian about the 2.32 and he just raved about the stone. It sounds like a winner and will make someone a very happy customer, but not me. I just could not get past the inclusions. Brian said it was totally eyeclean to him, but that someone else in the office with superb eyesight could sort of see something if he tilted the stone just so. I really appreciated his honesty in saying so because I''m sure I would have found them too after not too long. He did say it''s a very special stone. If only I could get past the inclusion thing, I would snatch it up in a heartbeat. But I can''t, so I won''t. We discussed another stone I''m considering, so I''m going to be giving it a lot of thought over the next few days.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I''d be just like you...if in doubt, don''t. I am just a tiny bit worried about H, but if I get one at GOG, at least Jonathan can test the color to see if it is a high H or not.

Good luck and we''ll be very interested to see what you decide!

 

[jadeleaves]

Date: 6/26/2006 9:52:22 AM
Author: Demelza
Okay, perhaps my question is too vague. Here are the links to the actual stones I''m HYPOTHETICALLY considering. Have at ''em, guys!

Lol!

Honey - ''sif we''ll believe those are ''hypothetical'' stones