Help choosing from the experts

Date: 6/15/2005 4:22:13 PM
Author: strmrdr
Not enough info to comment.
Do you have the sarin numbers? ideal-scope photos?

Havent delt with them.

Date: 6/15/2005 4:38:14 PM
Author: aljdewey
Sarin numbers are measurements of the diamond that include the crown and pavilion information. They don't appear on the GIA report, but supplier who have access to these machines can produce a Sarin report for you.

Ask Martin if he can get this data for you. The data helps to determine the make of the stone (how finely it is cut), and that affects the price directly.

Date: 6/15/2005 4:46:52 PM
Author: antimatter
 But based on the GIA reports are these good diamonds? Should i be looking at Ideal cut and Polish? ANy comments are welcome

Date: 6/15/2005 6:56:09 PM
Author: RockDoc

Although you information is limited, I prefer stone #1 to stone 2


Rockdoc

Date: 6/17/2005 2:48:31 PM
Author: Detox
I am guessing you are in the Toronto area if you are arranging a meeting with Martin. If that is the case I would be very interested in hearing about your full experience..........including how the final cost was calculated.

I also live in the Toronto area and after much research I am ready to look seriously enough to purchase. Are the prices in your post US dollars or Canadian Dollars?

Many Thanks.

Date: 6/17/2005 2:35:55 PM
Author: lop
Lots of people love H stones, and think H is a sweet spot for color -- lower price but not visibly yellow. Some people are very color sensitive (it all depends on your eyes and your preferences.) I would guess that H is going to be fine, but only you can make that final decision.

#1 gets a .5 TIC, and all EX on the HCA. It is on the shallow side, so up close, you might see a dark spot in the center from head shadow. Watch out for this when you look at it and see if it is there, and if it bugs you. It has a great spread, and will look larger than #2, even tho they are close in weight. It intrigues me -- small table, good flour, etc. #2 gets a 1.8, X and 3 VG's. They both score under 2 so both have the potential to be good performers. My guess is that they will look pretty different, so I would see if you could look at them both in various lights, and see what appeals to you more. It's all about what you like at the end of the day.

Lastly, we bought my upgrade stone from Martin. He is a very solid citizen. Honest and easy to deal with. I didn't meet him in person, but would do business with him again, if he had what I was looking for.

Date: 6/17/2005 3:38:03 PM
Author: Rhino
From a different perspective ...

The 33.3/40.6/56 combo (stone #1) will not make AGS ideal grade now. At best a grade 2. This stone will appear dark in the most common lighting conditions. Too much obscuration.

The 2nd stone would just qualify as an Ideal (34/41/58). One or 2 degrees over the 34 angle would put it outside of ideal zone. What disturbs me about this one is a diameter of only 5.57mm. Are you sure this isn't a typo? If it is a typo and the diameter is really 6.57mm then this is definitely the stone to get (if you've only boiled it down to these 2 options). This will be a brighter stone than option 1.

My .02c

Date: 6/18/2005 2:12:45 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
just by the #'s,i would pass on both of these stone. JMO

#1- too shallow (58.9% depth)

#2- the crown and the pavil angle has too much variance,even though the avg is 34.5' x 41.0' (crown 33.4-35.2') (pavil 40.7-41.6')

Date: 6/20/2005 4:40:46 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
Hi Antimatter (I love that screen name)

The crown and pavilion angles listed on the Sarin report are each an average of 8 measurements. I have attached an example of a crown scan on a round. The overall 'crown angle' listed for purposes of grading is 34.4. You can see the eight measurements from the scan are 34.4, 34.3, 34.4, 34.6, 34.4, 34.5, 34.3 & 34.6. So, this diamond's crown angle is 34.4 (with variance from 34.3-34.6, which is 0.3 total) - By the way, 0.3 is very tight. Don't expect every diamond you consider to be that precise.

Looking at your candidate #2: The crown angle is 34.5 (with variance from 33.4-35.2, which is 1.8 total). The pavilion angle is 40.0 (with variance from 40.7-41.6, which is 0.9 total). The crown has fairly wide variance in general and the pavilion, while not having so much variance, runs far above 41.1 in at least one place which may make it subject to leakage.

Date: 6/18/2005 2:12:45 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
just by the #'s,i would pass on both of these stone. JMO


#1- too shallow (58.9% depth)


#2- the crown and the pavil angle has too much variance,even though the avg is 34.5' x 41.0' (crown 33.4-35.2') (pavil 40.7-41.6')

Date: 6/20/2005 5:26:53 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
John
what are you doing up so late or should i say so early.

Date: 6/18/2005 2:12:45 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
just by the #'s,i would pass on both of these stone. JMO

#1- too shallow (58.9% depth)

#2- the crown and the pavil angle has too much variance,even though the avg is 34.5' x 41.0' (crown 33.4-35.2') (pavil 40.7-41.6')