Which super ideal would you choose?

[Peabody]

Hi all,

These two stones look comparable, except for a clarity difference that costs more.

Which one would you pick?

1.73 H SI1: https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10565
Price: $17,287
360° video: https://agslab.com/ym-vdgr/diamonds/104103563012/video

1.732 H VS2: https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10501
Price: $18,734
360° video: https://agslab.com/ym-vdgr/diamonds/104103563003/video

Thanks for your feedback!

 

[the_mother_thing]

To *my* eyes, the SI1 appears eye clean as well as shows less body color in the video, so coupled with the price break, I would probably go with that one. But that’s me ... others may feel differently.

 

[tkyasx78]

Can you go to CBI in idaho ? and see them in person? or have them sent to you? I would choose the less expensive if they si1 is clear and not cloudy, but seeing them in person would be best.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I'd prefer the H VS2 but if the SI1 is eye clean then flip a coin.

 

[blueMA]

H VS2, but the body color does look quite tinted on the video at least.

 

[LightBright]

Even though they seem to have very similar dimensions (I love those 55 percent tables), I like the proportions of the H SI1 stone. It also appears so much whiter than the H VS2 stone. And it appears brighter. (HPD reps kind of assured me that all CBI diamonds had similar appearances but these videos seem to indicate otherwise. The H SI1 is so much brighter, maybe that’s an illusion to due lighter body color). I would call in that particular diamond and see it in person (there might be a CBI vendor near you who HPD could send their stone to for you to see). My only concern with the SI1 is if you can see the inclusions or if you are the type of person who needs mind clean. That plot does look pretty included. I own a .95 E SI1 CBI and I never notice the inclusions. I like my stone very much, it’s explosively beautiful. I hope you like what you see as well! Good luck!

 

[flyingpig]

VS2.
I do not like that girdle treatment on the SI1

 

[crbl999]

VS2.
I do not like that girdle treatment on the SI1

What do you mean by girdle treatment?

 

[flyingpig]

What do you mean by girdle treatment?

The girdle is dug out.

 

[crbl999]

The girdle is dug out.

Where do you see the digging?

 

[flyingpig]

Where do you see the digging?

Actually, all over, especially at 9 and 1030.
I am surprised to see it is a CBI.

 

[TreeScientist]

Actually, all over, especially at 9 and 1030.
I am surprised to see it is a CBI.

The crown digging in this diamond is extremely minor. Maybe 1 or 2 degrees. If the digging isn't enough to cause those characteristic green "claws" between the arrow shafts (wihch is the telltale sign of digging-induced light performance deterioration) then I highly doubt ANYONE would be able to see any difference IRL.

 

[gm89uk]

Looks eye clean at si1. I too prefer the aset of the vs2 but would ask hpd to video them next to each other (although unlikely to show much difference) and ask their opinion on difference (if any) in personality between both diamonds. @LaylaR @Wink @Paul-Antwerp

 

[John P]

Hello and thanks for the comments @gm89uk . I was asked to provide info here.

H VS2, but the body color does look quite tinted on the video at least.

I agree about that video. It may be a reflection of something in the environment (?) In any case, we have provided a new 360-video for the 1.73 H VS2 for HPD, which can be found here.

https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10501

The girdle is dug out.

There is no painting or digging in our process. We use normal indexing. With that said, the lab uses non-contact scanners which can create phantoms in their CGI. Those scans are reliable for broad judgment, but not for making micro analyses about brillianteering minutia or optical precision.

I can point to the AGS report for HPD10565 1.73 H SI1 for example:

• The top set of graphics are the computer-simulations
• The bottom set are actual photos of the diamond

Don’t get me wrong. Scan technology is amazing and has come a long way. But these devices start with a published error of ± 10 microns linear / ± 0.1 degree angular, which is pretty wide for the most analytic in the Pricescope crowd. Failure to calibrate frequently, detritus on the stage or ground vibrations during a scan can create further error.

If the CGI was the reason to suspect ‘digging’ by some rogue polisher I hope I’ve corrected the impression. No one will be flogged, or kicked off our team

Actual photos are more reliable than CGI. It's the reason cut-focused online sellers go to the time and expense of employing someone to make ASET and H&A images in-house. But even photos and videos can be influenced by something in their environment. Ultimately there is no substitute for in-person analysis.

 

[chamois]

Hello and thanks for the comments @gm89uk . I was asked to provide info here.



I agree about that video. It may be a reflection of something in the environment (?) In any case, we have provided a new 360-video for the 1.73 H VS2 for HPD, which can be found here.

https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10501



There is no painting or digging in our process. We use normal indexing. With that said, the lab uses non-contact scanners which can create phantoms in their CGI. Those scans are reliable for broad judgment, but not for making micro analyses about brillianteering minutia or optical precision.

I can point to the AGS report for HPD10565 1.73 H SI1 for example:

• The top set of graphics are the computer-simulations
• The bottom set are actual photos of the diamond

Don’t get me wrong. Scan technology is amazing and has come a long way. But these devices start with a published error of ± 10 microns linear / ± 0.1 degree angular, which is pretty wide for the most analytic in the Pricescope crowd. Failure to calibrate frequently, detritus on the stage or ground vibrations during a scan can create further error.

If the CGI was the reason to suspect ‘digging’ by some rogue polisher I hope I’ve corrected the impression. No one will be flogged, or kicked off our team

Actual photos are more reliable than CGI. It's the reason cut-focused online sellers go to the time and expense of employing someone to make ASET and H&A images in-house. But even photos and videos can be influenced by something in their environment. Ultimately there is no substitute for in-person analysis.

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

 

[gm89uk]

Hello and thanks for the comments @gm89uk . I was asked to provide info here.



I agree about that video. It may be a reflection of something in the environment (?) In any case, we have provided a new 360-video for the 1.73 H VS2 for HPD, which can be found here.

https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10501



There is no painting or digging in our process. We use normal indexing. With that said, the lab uses non-contact scanners which can create phantoms in their CGI. Those scans are reliable for broad judgment, but not for making micro analyses about brillianteering minutia or optical precision.

I can point to the AGS report for HPD10565 1.73 H SI1 for example:

• The top set of graphics are the computer-simulations
• The bottom set are actual photos of the diamond

Don’t get me wrong. Scan technology is amazing and has come a long way. But these devices start with a published error of ± 10 microns linear / ± 0.1 degree angular, which is pretty wide for the most analytic in the Pricescope crowd. Failure to calibrate frequently, detritus on the stage or ground vibrations during a scan can create further error.

If the CGI was the reason to suspect ‘digging’ by some rogue polisher I hope I’ve corrected the impression. No one will be flogged, or kicked off our team

Actual photos are more reliable than CGI. It's the reason cut-focused online sellers go to the time and expense of employing someone to make ASET and H&A images in-house. But even photos and videos can be influenced by something in their environment. Ultimately there is no substitute for in-person analysis.

Thanks for this. @flyingpig correct me if I'm wrong, but I think flyingpig was talking about these areas on the actual images.

vs2 left, si1 right.

 

[LightBright]

I’d do what John suggests. Get a side by side video and an assessment by Wink, Layla and Melissa. Then decide which one you want to see in person. These seem like things that won’t be noticeable in person. YMMMV.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I agree about that video. It may be a reflection of something in the environment (?) In any case, we have provided a new 360-video for the 1.73 H VS2 for HPD, which can be found here.

https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10501

JP...TBH, I know the video will do no justice compared to the real thing. .

OP, either stone will look great !. you can ask Wink for his honest opinion.