3 stone dilemma. Anyone with opinions????

[laney]

Ok -

If you were to make a decision (that involved a heck of a lot of money) Would you choose any of these 3 stones? Is there anything that makes one stand out over the other. Are the prices reasonable? If I picked any one of these would I be ok? My thought is stone 3 (due to lower price higher clarity...) I have ideal scope of all three - I can post that if you'd like to see.

Your opintions are certainly appreciated!!

 

[valeria101]

I need to make that 1000 posts by my birthday, and that's SOON! Please...

 

[laney]

I will help you make that 1000 post mark!!!


It should be here below - sorry for the goof

 

[Colored Gemstone Nut]

They are all fine makes and the proportions look good. Are any of these stones Whiteflash ACA's?

 

[strmrdr]

Its going to take ideal scope images or other forms of more information to pick the best of the 3.
They are real close.

 

[laney]

Do these images change your mind? And yes one is a whiteflash - but I don't think it's the AGS cert need to check

 

[Mara]

Okay I am going to be really anal here with my opinion.




Chances are these stones are probably all pretty nice.




That said, I like #2.




#1: don't like the HCA score or the angles, keep pav angle under 41.


#2: great HCA score, great angles, great table, depth and nice girdle. Also diameter is very good.


#3: great HCA score, great angles, a little deep and a thicker girdle may be eating some diameter. When you compare the diameter of this stone to the other two, this one *will appear* smaller and it's the same CTW as #2 so it should not.




So out of the three, #2 has the best mix....but as I noted before they'd probably all be pretty nice.

 

[aljdewey]

I'm sure all would be pretty nice. But if we're splitting hairs, I'd go with #2.




Why? The crown angle on stone #1 is 41; and I'd personally rather stay between 40.6 and 40.9, and it's only a bit less expensive than stone #1




On stone #3, you're losing some diameter because it's deeper so carrying a bit more of its weight in the pavilion. Also, you're paying a bit more for the VS1.




Again, any of the three would be fine, but if budget isn't an issue, I'd pick #2.

 

[laney]

----------------
On 12/20/2003 4:36:31 PM Colored Gemstone Nut wrote:


They are all fine makes and the proportions look good. Are any of these stones Whiteflash ACA's?
----------------

Do you like/not like whiteflash? Interested in any opinions you may have!

 

[laney]

----------------
On 12/20/2003 4:44:32 PM Mara wrote:


Okay I am going to be really anal here with my opinion.


Chances are these stones are probably all pretty nice.


That said, I like #2.


#1: don't like the HCA score or the angles, keep pav angle under 41.

#2: great HCA score, great angles, great table, depth and nice girdle. Also diameter is very good.

#3: great HCA score, great angles, a little deep and a thicker girdle may be eating some diameter. When you compare the diameter of this stone to the other two, this one *will appear* smaller and it's the same CTW as #2 so it should not.


So out of the three, #2 has the best mix....but as I noted before they'd probably all be pretty nice.

----------------

Those "type" of opinions are the best type!!!! THANKS

 

[Mara]

Oh and I see the IS images are up now....




Out of those #1 and #2 look the best but with the combo of other things, again I'd still go #2.




#3 has a bit of light leakage in the triangle areas, combined with other items noted above, #2 is still my winner

Also WhiteFlash is an excellent company...so if these are any of their stones, you are in good hands.

 

[strmrdr]

diamond #2 is here:
gog
Exellent diamond..if he says its eyeclean it will be. Ask him.

 

[aljdewey]

Whiteflash is fabulous, as is GOG. Really, Laney, you could literally toss a coin here.




All perform well, so you really can't pick a loser here.

 

[laney]

----------------
On 12/20/2003 4:47:07 PM strmrdr wrote:

diamond #2 is here:
gog
Exellent diamond..if he says its eyeclean it will be. Ask him.

----------------

Yep - that is diamond #2 - you guys are good. Didn't want to use names if wasn't appropriate here.

Anyway - e-mailing about this - I was worried about that inclusion right in the center. In the e-mail they sent - it didn't say that it was "eye clean" -but there was only the link - not a description of the diamond. May just go visit this one in person. Just need to get my butt off of this darned computer.

 

[valeria101]

This is a great set of advice! No way one can end up with a so-so stone out of such a process.

Still, given that the quality of these cuts is quite simmilar and thise IS images pop, why is the stone with the best clarity also the cheapest? It seems that the last C (Cost) needs some more fine tuning.

Whiteflash? A really great shop according to Pricescope

 

[strmrdr]

2 would be my pick between the first 2.
The extra info GOG provides is worth the price difference between 1 and 2 and 2 is a slightly better cut.

Which leaves 3 if it was the same price 2 would win but id like more info to decide if 2 is worth $600 more.

 

[Colored Gemstone Nut]

----------------
On 12/20/2003 4:44:46 PM laney wrote:

----------------
On 12/20/2003 4:36:31 PM Colored Gemstone Nut wrote:








They are all fine makes and the proportions look good. Are any of these stones Whiteflash ACA's?
----------------

Do you like/not like whiteflash? Interested in any opinions you may have!
----------------

Yes, I like Whiteflash and have purchased diamonds from them in the past and have been very impressed...

My point is many of the crown angles on whiteflash stones seem to be really close to 35 deg...

All of these stones should be georgeous....

 

[valeria101]

There is really great price variation to play with:

I guess that the cut may make stones between 1.5-1.6 cts look the same. Taking cut quality as the one characteristic to be optimized within the price range of some given combination of clarity, color and carat weight, there is a serious price interval to play with. The following price intervals were obtained for stones between 1.5-1.6 cts, H&A right here on Pricescope's serch engine:

For I-SI1: price between 6.8k to 9.4k

For G-Si1: price between 7.8k to 12.6 k

For I VS1: price between 6.7k to 10.2 k

Granted, these stones would not have the requitred angles listed, let's see what GOG's H&A serach engine has to say. I'd be looking for a G-SI by now...

 

[valeria101]

Among the three stones? The second, sure!

 

[laney]

Oooh - but stone #1 seems really pretty in the pic. Stone #2 is gog (see link in above post). This one has a small pinpoint (Black) inclusion under the table. But I can see it from here

Do you think #2 is work the 200 or so more?

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 12/20/2003 4:50:17 PM laney wrote:

----------------

On 12/20/2003 4:47:07 PM strmrdr wrote:


diamond #2 is here:

gog

Exellent diamond..if he says its eyeclean it will be. Ask him.


----------------

Yep - that is diamond #2 - you guys are good. Didn't want to use names if wasn't appropriate here.


Anyway - e-mailing about this - I was worried about that inclusion right in the center. In the e-mail they sent - it didn't say that it was 'eye clean' -but there was only the link - not a description of the diamond. May just go visit this one in person. Just need to get my butt off of this darned computer.


----------------

imho: the more information we have the better we can help so its good to post links. There is a possiblity of bias entering the picture that way but every one of the PS vendors has had a diamond slammed here at one time or another. It really helps with si1 diamonds that we "know" the person who is saying its eyeclean.

If your close to his store you need to go see him from what I have heard you will get a very good education in diamonds while actualy looking at them which is better than just reading it on the web and you will meet some nice people.

 

[laney]

----------------
On 12/20/2003 4:58:40 PM valeria101 wrote:

Granted, these stones would not have the requitred angles listed, let's see what GOG's H&A serach engine has to say. I'd be looking for a G-SI by now...----------------

Ana -

Like I can FIND one. Whew. I've been on the computer straight for the last few days and nights.

My philosophy (since other diamonds have been bought while I was looking just this week) - is get three good options - put them in order - then TRY to buy them.

So if I don't get one because it's gone - then I know that the other two would be just as good deals and I can be happy with them.

I'm hoping this is the bunch.

Why is everyone staying away from stone #3? Any thoughts?

 

[strmrdr]

The information that gog provides with his diamonds would cost more than $200 to get from an independat appraiser so yes its worth it.

 

[valeria101]

Got it!

STone 3 has the smalest diameter, this is what took it off the list. In this case, the stones are about 0.1 mm apart. This should not make a heck of a difference. That thicker girdle may also look like a negative attribute on paper, but it's impact on depth is minimal. getting any of these off the list really is optimizing to death! I surely like the VS1 part though!

 

[Mara]

I already mentioned why I wouldn't get stone #3.




There's leakage in the idealscope image, it's too small looking, the girdle is not as attractive....and its cheaper than the others--warning sign to me since they are all 'ideal' type stones. Why is a VS1 cheaper?




#2 is worth the extra money IMO.




#1 could be a second choice but it's only $200 less. I also am not as keen on the HCA score and the angles...41 pav angle is not desirable.

 

[Colored Gemstone Nut]

Laney,




Personally...I would go with 2...




The inclusion is a white feather located under the table but the illumination field that GOG uses to bring out the inclusion is not typical of the viewing environment we all view our diamonds in....




With that said the measurable variances between all the measured angles is no greater than .4...A very tight stone..Precision cutting

I like the Hearts & Arrows image on this stone too...Crisp symmetrical pattern and LS/IS images which present a good combination of reds and blacks which will provide good contast brilliance in this diamond..




All 3 stones are nice, but with the info presented my pick would be #2...




Just my 2 cents..Good Luck

 

[laney]

I do like the VS1 part too. (and the no tax part - they are in TX me..NY)

But I don't want to be an amateur here and bypass a really good stone - for something that can't been seen by a naked eye.... but it is enticing....

BTW - we just saw Lord of the Rings III earlier today. My boyfriend is already teasing me by coming into the office and wispering "my precious....." to me as I search for this stone.

Thank goodness it's not just me talking about these stones on a sat afternoon!!!

 

[Mara]

I agree, if you can get a non H&A stone with an eye-popping IS image that is G SI for the same size, same price...I would probably go that route. At least worth a call to WF to get the IS image for the stone.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 12/20/2003 5:11:52 PM Mara wrote: I already mentioned why I wouldn't get stone #3 There's leakage in the idealscope image, it's too small looking, the girdle is not as attractive....and its cheaper than the others--warning sign to me since they are all 'ideal' type stones. Why is a VS1 cheaper? ---------------

the IS picture of the third stone looks weird... Where are the arows? This may be an inacurate picture after all... This is not to support stone #3. The price is still within the range of G-VS, and before one hith the 3-4 cts range, prices for RBCs in H&A parameters still varry as much as one third if one controlls for the available cut parameters (such as the 'in store' cut evaluation). How many sellers would price stones according to their IS fingerprint?

 

[laney]

Well H & A does come in second. My boyfreind and I discussed this at length and we agree.

However - I was "told" that finding a non H & A , cut well enough to score on some of these tests was like finding a 4 leaf clover.

Which I now believe.

However - just in case I did earlier today send an e-mail to WF to inquire about pics of some stones. I agree - a G would be better.


NOW HERE's a DUMB question.... I saw some "ideal" (not AGS certs) listed at sites with looooow prices (as compared to these three). Better color by far - but 1 - 2K cheaper. They of course did not list angles - so I inquried just to see.

So - my question is - is the price range -- as what is referenced above realistic (the price scope mention) for those ranges? I instinctively wanted to stay away from these lower priced diamonds. Then I thought - why? just because they are cheaper.....Ok -- when I see the numbers I may find out.

Are the diamonds above priced OK in your opinion?