2 diamonds - 2 days to decide-input requested

[free-user]

1.59 Carat round diamond

This 1.59 carat round diamond G color vs2 clarity has Excellent proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

GIA

table: 56
CA: 34.5
PA: 40.8 @ 15%
depth: 61.2 @ 43%
LGH: 75
star length: 55
thin-mid 3%

1.60 Carat round diamond

This True Hearts TM diamond, 1.6 carat H color si2 clarity has ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from AGS

www.jamesallen.com

AGS Laboratories

agslab.com

GIA is 9.8k in price and AGS is 9k. what on paper and with the images is seems to be better?

 

[jasper]

The GIA-graded stone has "Strong" fluorescence, which makes me doubt its "G" color grade. In recent decades, the GIA has allowed fluorescence to affect the whiteness of the stone during its evaluation of color.

Do you want "Strong" fluorescence? Do you have an idea of what it will look like? Some people prize that look; others don't.

 

[free-user]

The GIA-graded stone has "Strong" fluorescence, which makes me doubt its "G" color grade. In recent decades, the GIA has allowed fluorescence to affect the whiteness of the stone during its evaluation of color.

Do you want "Strong" fluorescence? Do you have an idea of what it will look like? Some people prize that look; others don't.

Not positive but i looked at GOG video sample and i can live with that as long as it's not hazy. what do you think about the other AGS please? i did a HCA on the AGS and it's a 1 but lumped into the AVERAGE column. does the images provided trump the HCA info? i'd love to hear what you and everyone else has to say.

 

[jasper]

My guess is that these two stones' proportions that affect the HCA's brilliance, fire, and scintillation subscores are nearly identical. The new AGS-graded stone probably has a one percentage point thicker girdle, which is why its spread is smaller.

My guess is that the old AGS-graded stone has slightly shallower proportions than either of these two stones, and a slightly thinner girdle than the GIA-graded stone.

Real diamonds do not have perfect symmetry, and scanning machines have errors. My guesses are based on trying to adjust the grading reports' proportions so that a perfectly symmetrical model stone would be within rounding error of the actual stones' measured diameters, depth, and mass. I had to make adjustments to the proportions of all three stones; the old AGS-graded stone needed the most adjustments to get the numbers to add up.

In order from least likely to be noticed to most likely to be noticed:

1. At the hair splitting level, the old AGS-graded stone might be cut better than the GIA-graded stone, which is probably a trifle better cut than the new AGS-graded stone. You might be able to see the difference in spread between the old AGS-graded stone and the new AGS-graded stone; the GIA-graded stone is in between.
2. It is likely that a person who is familiar with each diamond will be able to see the difference in clarity between the VS2 GIA-graded stone and the SI2 new AGS-graded stone; the SI1 old AGS-graded stone is in between.
3. You can do something fun, useful, and/or memorable with the $2,000 price difference between the old AGS-graded stone and the new AGS-graded stone; the GIA-graded stone is in between.
4. In many lighting conditions, you will be able to see the fluorescence difference between the GIA-graded stone and the other two stones. You might like it very much; or it might not matter to you.

My advice would be to make your decision based on how you think you and your intended would answer the following questions:

1. Do you want "Strong" fluorescence? If so, get the GIA-graded stone.
2. If not, is the old AGS-graded stone worth the price difference?

 

[chamois]

I would be concerned about the SI2 being eye clean. You may/may not see the inclusion on the table?

 

[free-user]

My guess is that these two stones' proportions that affect the HCA's brilliance, fire, and scintillation subscores are nearly identical. The AGS-graded stone probably has a one percentage point thicker girdle, which is why its spread is smaller.

My guess is that the old AGS-graded stone has slightly shallower proportions than either of these two stones, and a slightly thinner girdle than the GIA-graded stone.

Real diamonds do not have perfect symmetry, and scanning machines have errors. My guesses are based on trying to adjust the grading reports' proportions so that a perfectly symmetrical model stone would be within rounding error of the actual stones' measured diameters, depth, and mass. I had to make adjustments to the proportions of all three stones; the old AGS-graded stone needed the most adjustments to get the numbers to add up.

In order from least likely to be noticed to most likely to be noticed:

1. At the hair splitting level, the old AGS-graded stone might be cut better than the GIA-graded stone, which is probably a trifle better cut than the new AGS-graded stone. You might be able to see the difference in spread between the old AGS-graded stone and the new AGS-graded stone; the GIA-graded stone is in between.
2. It is likely that a person who is familiar with each diamond will be able to see the difference in clarity between the VS2 GIA-graded stone and the SI2 new AGS-graded stone; the SI1 old AGS-graded stone is in between.
3. You can do something fun, useful, and/or memorable with the $2,000 price difference between the old AGS-graded stone and the new AGS-graded stone; the GIA-graded stone is in between.
4. In many lighting conditions, you will be able to see the fluorescence difference between the GIA-graded stone and the other two stones. You might like it very much; or it might not matter to you.

My advice would be to make your decision based on how you think you and your intended would answer the following questions:

1. Do you want "Strong" fluorescence? If so, get the GIA-graded stone.
2. If not, is the old AGS-graded stone worth the price difference?

i think you mis-interpreted my reply but you still answered it too. Im only deciding between the SI2 AGS and the GIA stone. I just have a slight hunch that the SI2 AGS has more detailed info to go and and perhaps be a safer bet. SI2 seems to be "eye" clean and may warrant a purchase to see in person.

But that is one reason why i wanted feedback on. Does it seem the SI2 might pass a eye clean.

 

[Big Fat Facets]

i'd also be concerned with the si2 for a ring. a good idea, to see for yourself, if it is indeed eye clean

 

[free-user]

i'd also be concerned with the si2 for a ring. a good idea, to see for yourself, if it is indeed eye clean

i do wonder why the gemologist on request at JA just can chime in? i have asked or do they not have their "TRUE H&A on-hand"?

 

[mcosme]

i do wonder why the gemologist on request at JA just can chime in? i have asked or do they not have their "TRUE H&A on-hand"?

Worth asking

When I bought from them they called in 3 stones and had it evaluated by the gemologist, idealscopes taken before I decided and paid. This was pre covid though.

 

[Big Fat Facets]

i do wonder why the gemologist on request at JA just can chime in? i have asked or do they not have their "TRUE H&A on-hand"?

doesn't hurt to ask if james allen can call it in a have a gemologist look at it for you. but still doesn't take the place of seeing it for yourself. at least, after the gemologist sees it, you can determine if you want to proceed to have the stone sent to you ...