The fight is on!

[RichDD]

So my B&M is trying to win me over from a stone I purchased online, and they brought out one hell of a contender...

In one corner, we have the original stone, a WF ACA weighing in at:
1.12ct H SI1 (single large inclusion to side of table, obvious in scope, but pretty much inivis to naked eye)
6.67 x 6.70mm
AGS-000
Depth: 60.8%
Table: 57.2%
Crown: 34.6 deg
Pavil: 40.6 deg
Lower Half: 77%
Star: 54%
HCA rating: 0.9
All in all, a damn nice stone, ~$6400

And in the other corner, the stone the B&M whipped out:
1.32ct H SI1 (tiny inclusions more evenly spread over the stone, absolutely invis to naked eye)
7.00 x 7.06mm
GIA ex/ex/ex
Depth: 62.0%
Table: 55.0%
Crown: 35.0 deg
Pavil: 40.8 deg
Lower Half: 75%
Star: 50%
HCA rating: 1.6
~$7200

I was very impressed with them. The 1.32 looked fantastic! They are really trying to win me over. They didnt have an IS or an ASET, but I used the H&A viewer to verify some damn good optical symmetry. The only hitch that puts the B&M stone below the WF stone is the lower half %, which is a bit short, just enough so that the hearts almost blend with the arrowheads below them. They are not as clearly separated as the WF stone (which is, in itself, excellent). So, the 1.32 doesnt make the cut for "Traditional Japanese styled H&A", but it has the perfect symmetry I''m looking for. As far as I could discern, the brilliance/fire/scint looked roughly the same for both stones in various lighting conditions (showroom lights, diamond grading light, dim lights, outside).

I think I''d be a fool not to take the B&M deal. The eye-cleanliness is better (within the same grade), the symmetry is there, plus it''s 20pts bigger for not much of a price jump. They are giving me a killer deal to win my business (and referrals), and the only catch is that I''ll have to get the setting from them, which I was planning to do anyway. Win-win.

I did order an Ideal-Scope, but it hasnt arrived yet, and I dont think it will in time to compare the two. We''ll see. Either way, I have to hand it to my B&M, they might have the K.O.

 

[swingirl]

It looks like you found your stone. Please post the Ideal Scope when you get it. It''d be interesting to see what it looks like since to your eyes the stones looked are very close.

If you purchase your setting from the same folks you''ll have a nice local place for cleanings and repairs.

 

[RichDD]

I also want to mention that the guys at the B&M were blown away by my knowledge of diamonds and cut. The sales guy I was dealing with didnt know everything I was asking about, but didnt hesitate to bring in the owner, who, half joking/half serious, asked me if I wanted a job. So, good job pricescope, another educated buyer on da streetz.

 

[amyjokerette]

It sounds like this B&M store did a nice job accomodating you, even bringing out the owner to answer more questions, instead of just BS-ing. If you seem comfortable with that store and the management there then it seems to me like its a great deal! Plus, they often offer guarantee of their work if you get your prongs checked a couple times a year, which is a good idea anyway. Please post photos when you get them!

 

[diamondringlover]

I love this place it good to hear you are an educated buyer, thanks to pricescope

 

[Upgradable]

I''d go with the B&M stone, and give them kudos for stepping up!

 

[Regular Guy]

Not to mention...having a local place to go to for servicing, and to feel good about that...is not incidental in my opinion.

 

[bgray]

i would not buy a round brillient with a depth of 62%

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 10/3/2008 8:33:26 PM
Author: bgray
i would not buy a round brillient with a depth of 62%

Dave at least has expressed his thought that his standards for1A are pretty tight...

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/3/2008 8:33:26 PM
Author: bgray
i would not buy a round brillient with a depth of 62%

62% is fine for depth in a round diamond - many beautifully cut diamonds around here with such depths and even a bit more...

Rich, both diamonds look very nice, see what you think when you get your IS.

 

[somehowcollide]

I''m very impressed with the B&M! I''m sure they enjoyed working with an educated consumer, such as yourself.

 

[purrfectpear]

Stock Number 8508187
Certificate GIA 16923660
Cut ROUND BRILLIANT
Carat 1.32
Color H
Clarity SI1
Price $ 6666.53

Measurements 7.03 x 7.08 x 4.31 mm
Depth Percentage 61.1 %
Table Percentage 58 %
Girdle M-STK
Culet N
Polish EXCELLENT
Symmetry EXCELLENT
Fluorescence MEDIUM BLUE
Other Notes H&A
Clarity-Enhanced NO
[email protected]
800-252-1476
905 889-2953

If you''re interested in saving a few dollars you could call on this one and see how it does in the HCA, and eyecleaness.

 

[MMT]

It looks like you did your homework. good job!!!

 

[Kelli]

As much as I love WF, in your case I would go for the bigger, more eye clean stone! Especially since they''re trying so hard! Post pics when you make a decision and get one!

 

[Rhea]

I''d go for the local store. The point of buying from PS vendors is that they have good stones which can be hard to find at B&M. But if your B&M has good stones and is working with you then there''s no point in going to a PS vendor. Your local guy will be there to service the rings and for any other future purchase you want to see in person.

 

[marcy]

I would go with your local jeweler. It sounds like a lovely stone at a great price.

 

[KenS]

Although it seems B&M is a winner, I would also if they would match WF''s lifetime trade up policy at full purchase price.

 

[RichDD]

Date: 10/6/2008 9:59:32 AM
Author: KenS
Although it seems B&M is a winner, I would also if they would match WF''s lifetime trade up policy at full purchase price.

They have the same trade up policy (full price, no minimum increase), and they also have a 30 day return period, versus the 10 days with WF.

 

[RichDD]

...Please post the Ideal Scope when you get it. It'd be interesting to see what it looks like since to your eyes the stones looked are very close...

My IdealScope came in and I took some pictures just before returning the WF stone. All pictures were taken in the diamond showroom, so they're all a bit washed out (it was so freaking bright in there). They both look better in real life - the pictures are hard to take. Props to all the vendors that do this on a regular basis...

First up are the Ideal-Scope images. Both looked pretty much the same as far as red/pink coverage.
WF stone is on the left.

 

[RichDD]

Now here's the Arrows picture from the H&A viewer Whiteflash provides.

You can see what I mean about the Lower Half % being a bit shorter on the B&M stone (75 vs 77%). The hearts are separate from the arrowheads, but just barely. From this camera angle, many appear to blend in. The separation in the WF stone is much more obvious.

Again, WF stone on the left.

 

[Stone-cold11]

From the hearts pic, there is no way the store stone can be labeled as a H&A stone, the separation is almost undefine...

 

[Rhea]

You said you returned the WF stone. Does that mean that you''re keeping the B&M one?

 

[Stone-cold11]

yap, he kept the B&M stone.

 

[RichDD]

Date: 10/9/2008 6:05:14 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
From the hearts pic, there is no way the store stone can be labeled as a H&A stone, the separation is almost undefine...

The store did not label it as such. The separation is there, but barely. Like I said, it doesnt show up well in the photos. No, this does not meet the requirements for "Traditional Hearts and Arrows", the LH% is 1 percentage point too low, but I felt the deal was better. Plus, to my eyes they looked the same, with the exception of size.

I kept the B&M stone and returned the WF stone.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/9/2008 6:05:14 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
From the hearts pic, there is no way the store stone can be labeled as a H&A stone, the separation is almost undefine...

so?
The optical symmetry is still excellent and the OP liked the looks of it so the h&a title is meaningless.
This is why I think the concept of so called "true h&a" is bogus.

 

[Stone-cold11]

Storm,
I am just pointing out. If he is not going for a H&A, why view it pavilion side up with a H&A viewer in the first place when you know it is not going to give you a good H&A pic?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/10/2008 1:19:24 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
Storm,

I am just pointing out. If he is not going for a H&A, why view it pavilion side up with a H&A viewer in the first place when you know it is not going to give you a good H&A pic?

To judge the optical symmetry.
The same reason one would use it on a princess cut or other cut that don''t have hearts.
h&a is a subset of optical symmetry.
Optical symmetry is the important part of h&a, the pretty images are marketing.

 

[Stone-cold11]

True. But the H&A image to me, the ACA wins out on optical symm performance.

They set a H&A standard that they try to achieve and market that pretty image. It is optically symmetric. As you say, it is a subset, meaning that it has a tighter set of variables to achieve in order to reach that subset, right? So that should be a higher difficulty, rarer that a nominally ooptically symm RB cut, right? Shouldn''t that command higher prices if people want that pretty pic, even if it is just marketing?

If you don''t set a standard, when are you going to say a optically symmetrical RB is no longer a H&A?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/10/2008 1:50:00 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
True. But the H&A image to me, the ACA wins out on optical symm performance.


They set a H&A standard that they try to achieve and market that pretty image. It is optically symmetric. As you say, it is a subset, meaning that it has a tighter set of variables to achieve in order to reach that subset, right? So that should be a higher difficulty, rarer that a nominally ooptically symm RB cut, right? Shouldn't that command higher prices if people want that pretty pic, even if it is just marketing?


If you don't set a standard, when are you going to say a optically symmetrical RB is no longer a H&A?

Yes and No, a true h&a diamond is no more optically symmetrical for having the title than one that is just as optically symmetrical that don't have the title due to long or short lgf%.
In some crown/pavilion combinations lgf% outside the true h&a range have superier performance. (longer lgf% usually)
Some people would prefer a diamond with lgf% outside the true h&a range even if the performance overall was slightly less in some areas. (oec with short lgf% for example)

The true h&a standard is an arbitrary standard based on pretty pictures and marketing that is a subset of the possible range of heart images that show excellent optically symmetry in round brilliant diamonds.
Does that subset have added value over other optically symmetrical diamonds? Only if one values the pictures and marketing.

 

[Diamond*Dana]

To the OP...
Congratulations. It looks like you found a beautiful stone that you are happy with

!