CutNut, which would you choose?

[ready]

CutNut, thanks for your continued help.

Yesterday you weighed in on a shallow stone that I've been looking at. Specs follow:

1.3C round
VS2
G Color
Diameter: 7.19 mm avg
Depth: 57.9%
Crown Angle: 33.8 degrees or 12.5%
Pavil Angle: 40.4 degrees or 42.5%
Table Avg. Size 62.7%
Cutlet: Very Small

I found a new one today (although I think I've seen it before - getting delirious at this point in my search). Specs follow:


1.31C Round Brilliant
Color: G
Clarity: VS1
Measurements: 7.11 X 7.09 X 4.36 mm
Depth 61.4
Table 55.0
Crown 15.5
Pavilion 43.2
Girdle: Thin to Medium
Polish: VG
Symmetry: VG
Flourescence: None
Cutlet: None
Comments: Ideal Cut

Unfortunately I have no angle specs for this stone at this point - only %. However, based on preliminary numbers, would you comment on this one versus the first? I can definitely see clear hearts and arrows when using an H&A viewer.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

If you are checking these stones yourself can you get an ideal-scope and calibration CZ(link above)?

The cuts on both look fine from the #'s given.

You make no mention of certs - you might want both stones to be compared by an independant appraiser?

 

[ready]

Actually I viewed both with your Ideal Scope - my dealer has one. The first one visibly leaks a little on the edges. The second one looks more favorable through the scope. The first one rates a 1.3 on your HCA. The second one a 1.1. You had said that the first would look better from 15" than 12". Would there be similar rules on the second?

The 1.30 is an IGI cert. The second (1.31) is an EGL-USA(LA) cert. I really don't care who certs it as long as it checks out with an appraiser. I plan on getting the winner appraised independently. Both of them appeared as white or whiter when placed next to a couple of GIA "G" rated stones (viewed from the pavilion side against white background). That surprised me! Anyway, I am making a decision between these two. I feel at this point I've done my due diligence with brilliance scopes, sarins, HCA, Ideal Scopes, etc. Both look great to my eye, and are priced very closely. I guess I'm just looking for a little push one way or the other. Is there anything redeeming about either one that might tip the scales (since they are both beautiful to me)?

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I would try and nudge you in the direction of the 1.31

-----------
Actually I viewed both with your Ideal Scope - my dealer has one. The first one visibly leaks a little on the edges. The second one looks more favorable through the scope.
-----------

Trust your eyes.

-----------
The first one rates a 1.3 on your HCA. The second one a 1.1.
-----------

Another factor nudging in favor of the 1.31.

-----------
You had said that the first would look better from 15" than 12". Would there be similar rules on the second?
-----------

No. The 1.31 does not have as shallow a depth, therefore will appear just as lively at 12" as it does at 15".

The higher crown of the 1.31 is also going to lend itself to more dispersive "fire" (the rainbow colors refracting off the steeper "prisms" of the longer, more steeply angled crown.)

----------
The 1.30 is an IGI cert. The second (1.31) is an EGL-USA(LA) cert.
----------

I would tend to favor the EGL cert for reliability over the IGI cert. This is not to say the IGI cert is incorrect, but I've just had more positive experiences with the EGL-LA lab over the years than the IGI.

-----------
I really don't care who certs it as long as it checks out with an appraiser. I plan on getting the winner appraised independently.
-----------

Absolutely have "the winner" checked out by an independent appraiser for direction and peace-of-mind. You might kick yourself afterwards if you don't.

-----------
Both of them appeared as white or whiter when placed next to a couple of GIA "G" rated stones (viewed from the pavilion side against white background). That surprised me!
-----------

Impressive.

----------
Anyway, I am making a decision between these two. I feel at this point I've done my due diligence with brilliance scopes, sarins, HCA, Ideal Scopes, etc. Both look great to my eye, and are priced very closely. I guess I'm just looking for a little push one way or the other. Is there anything redeeming about either one that might tip the scales (since they are both beautiful to me)?
----------

If they're priced closely, my money would be on the 1.31.

Rich, GG
Sarasota Gemological Laboratory

 

[ready]

Well, I made my decision, and I'm afraid it was against the sage advice of the experts here. It finally came down to which one I though looked better with my own eye. I'll be darned, the shallower stone was more sparkly and firey than the 55% table stone. I could not detect any fisheye effect. I viewed for a total of probably an hour in all lighting conditions on the deciding visit - incandescent, flourescent, and sunlight. I tilted it at every possible angle against different colored backgrounds. It was hands down in my estimation.

Perhaps this stone is one of the exceptions....kind of like the .83 carat on www.goodoldgold.com that's posted for educational reasons only. Seems to buck the trend.

Another bonus - the appraiser believes that the stone was mis-graded in the color department....but to the positive side... F instead of its G rating. My own eyes corroborated this previously when I compared it to several stones that were GIA graded "G" in a white grading trough. The GIA's were noticeably (although slightly) tinted in comparison.

Maybe I should someday send it to GIA to see what their grading shows.

I am very pleased with it even though it doesn't conform to the current thoughts on ideal cuts. I had the opportunity to buy the other one and several other like it...but in the end my eyes made the decision.

The stone is being set and will be ready on Tuesday. I'll attempt to post a picture if my digital cam can get close enough. Any suggestions on how to take the pic?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Ready you have educated yourself and made your choice.
Your choice is the right choice because it is your choice.

You will see more of the small fisheye effect more readily when the stone is dirty and you are looking from an oblique angle, but the words that have been written about this are overstated. Also because the girdle is not thick and Ipresume the girdle is faceted, the fisheye is not very thick or noticeable.

I appluad you for educating and making a purchase based on your own values and eyes.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I love it when people buy by their gut instincts as well. That's what it's all about. Buy what is most beautiful to you.

Congratulations.

Rich, GG
Sarasota Gemological Laboratory

 

[Mara]

Congrats! Now you and I can form a team and take over the world with our larger tabled diamonds!

Just out of curiousity, since I dont have Gem Advisor at home right now..what did GA say on the specs for you stone on fish-eye? My stone had no fish-eye according to the appraiser, and it got a 1.0 (VG) for fish-eye on the GA file which is what most ideal cuts get so far that I have seen by comparing other files with mine. Anyway, just curious to see if yours had a small fish-eye and was confirmed by appraiser or ?

Thanks & Happy Holidays!

 

[ready]

Mara, good question. Is it typical for Gem Advisor to take an hour + to compute the results? I took the files that Leonid provided and my computer chewed on them forever. My computer is not slow either - brand new ThinkPad.

I believe mine came out with a .85 result, which if memory serves, was "GOOD." So it sounds like you have a better result. I did mention the fisheye concern to both the gemologist and the appraiser, and both noted that there was not an issue with this stone.

So, I join your ranks!

 

[ready]

Mara, just ran it again...for some reason it ran MUCH faster this time! Not sure what I was doing wrong.

The results were .75 for fisheye. Not the best I guess, but I couldn't see any dark parts in the middle.

The light returns were all very good (.96 - 1.01) and the contrast came in at .89.

Not sure what all of this computer modeling reveals in real world. That's probably a poor statement on my part since my profession is based on selling technology! Oh well, eyes don't lie.

By the way, this stone came out as good or better on light return than the other stone I was considering - both in this program and on the Brilliance Scope. The other diamond was an unbranded H&A.

Can you detect any fisheye with yours?

 

[Mara]

I'm not too familiar with what an actual fish-eye looks like, but both our jeweler and my boyfriend who has seen other fish-eye stones looked closely and found the diamond had no semblance of a fish-eye effect. The appraiser echoed their sentiments, and the Gem Advisor gave the 1.00 score so I guess all is well.

Also an interesting note is that when we had the gem appraised, the appraiser gave the stone a table of 61.4% as opposed to 62%. I guess the GIA rounds up to the nearest whole # for reporting purposes, but that score input into the HCA vs a 62% does give a better result.

 

[Mara]

Wanted to also say that if the gemologist and the appraiser both said you had nothing to worry about regarding fish-eye, then I am sure it is fine. If your eyes tell you the same thing, great!

If I am not mistaken, the HCA, Gem Advisor/Diam Calc etc modeling programs all operate on the assumption that they are modeling a perfectly symmetrical diamond. I don't know what the actual % of that happening is, but chances are the models, scores etc are slightly different from what you see in person. The programs are to be used for estimation.

And I have also noted that out of around 9 Gem Advisor files that I have downloaded and viewed in the last week, not one had a fish-eye effect over 1.00, so there was no 1.05, or 1.10 (or any in excellent range). The highest was 1.00. So in my mind, 1.00 is almost the highest to go except for the possibility of the 'odd' occurence of higher. Anyone seen this? The scale goes higher, but I have not yet found a stone to model higher than 1.00.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Correct
1.00 = best score for any fisheye.

Try this - keep every thing sles the same and enter smalller pav angles like 40.3, 40 etc into HCA - you will see this stone sits very close to the first warning, but is OK according to Moi