Advice on 2 RB diamonds (with IS images attached)

[AnotherDiamondNoob]

Hi, everyone. After many many hours of searching for the perfect round brilliant cut diamond, I have narrowed it down to two candidates found on James Allen. They are both AGS graded diamonds with ideal 0 light performance, symmetry and polish. They both score below 2.0 for HCA. Price wise, they are within $1,000 of each other.

I have attached the Ideal Scope images of the two said diamonds. Based on my limited knowledge, their IS images are both excellent. Any advice on which one of the two linked below would be considered a better candidate?

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.22-carat-d-color-vs1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-872698

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.37-carat-f-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-872687

Any advice would be very much appreciated!

 

[AnotherDiamondNoob]

I forgot to mention that I have these two diamonds placed on hold until tomorrow. Please help me evaluate them. Thank you all in advance.

 

[flyingpig]

F VS2. No brainer for me. Better IS image and better value. Still colorless and still VS

 

[AnotherDiamondNoob]

Thanks, that's what I thought too, even though the gemologist at James Allen recommended the other as the better performer.

In terms of value, do you think the second one is a good choice? The quoted price is just slightly below $12,000.

 

[Gypsy]

Hmm. Did the gemologist detail WHY he prefers the D? Did he say what the difference in the performance was, and how much of a difference it was?

They are both great idealscopes. And I too would be inclined toward the larger F but I would like to know why the gemologist made the recommendation they did.

 

[AnotherDiamondNoob]

According to the email, the gemologist prefers the D by a very small margin since it has stronger light performance. The F ranks as a close second.

 

[AnotherDiamondNoob]

Since this is such an important decision, I just wanted as much expert input as possible prior to pulling the trigger. Sorry if I sound indecisive.

The D is part of their "True Hearts" collection, while the F is not. Is there a big difference between them in terms of their optical symmetry? Unfortunately, I was not able to obtain a hearts image on the F.

 

[flyingpig]

Both diamonds have ideal proportions with AGS 0 light performance grade. This is confirmed by IS images.
Any difference in light performance between these two diamonds will be negligible, in my opinion.

That F VS2 is a great find. You don't need to pay 10~15% "True Heart" premium.

 

[AnotherDiamondNoob]

After re-reading the email again, it appears that I have mixed up the the two IS images. Now it makes sense why the gemologist recommended the D. Sorry for the error.

 

[AnotherDiamondNoob]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, flyingpig. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but would the smallish gray patches under the table of the F be considered as light leakage? Also, what are those tiny black dots near the arrows? Is it something that could translate to real world differences?

 

[WinkHPD]

Both diamonds have ideal proportions with AGS 0 light performance grade. This is confirmed by IS images.
Any difference in light performance between these two diamonds will be negligible, in my opinion.

That F VS2 is a great find. You don't need to pay 10~15% "True Heart" premium.

I respect that this is your opinion, but I have seen several times when five diamonds of various AGS0 grades were put into a slotted tray and nothing was said, that the ones near the top of the cut grade were chosen far more often than those in the middle to lower portion of the cut grade. Even with AGS0 cutting there is a variance from the top of the grade to the line just above the AGS Excellent cut grade.

While I respect that the OP has asked our opinions, we have not seen the two diamonds side by side and can not answer for him why the gemologist made the recommendations that he made when looking at the two diamonds side by side.

I have not looked at the details of these two diamonds as I can not comment on them as a vendor. I can say though that I have seen visible differences in one AGS 0 to another when seen side by side, although separately they both were stunning. I have even seen one AGS0 that I thought was less than stunning, but it was a very rare exception.

You may even be right, flyingpig, that he does not need to pay the premium, but unless he actually sees both diamonds together, he can never really know whether or not he wants to pay the premium.

I will always believe that it is very hard to quantify the beauty of a diamond on paper, as there are just too many factors that the paper does not tell us.

Just my thoughts on a Friday night after a long weeks work. Looking forward to the weekend and watching my granddaughter play basketball...

Wink

 

[flyingpig]

Both diamonds have ideal proportions with AGS 0 light performance grade. This is confirmed by IS images.
Any difference in light performance between these two diamonds will be negligible, in my opinion.

That F VS2 is a great find. You don't need to pay 10~15% "True Heart" premium.

I respect that this is your opinion, but I have seen several times when five diamonds of various AGS0 grades were put into a slotted tray and nothing was said, that the ones near the top of the cut grade were chosen far more often than those in the middle to lower portion of the cut grade. Even with AGS0 cutting there is a variance from the top of the grade to the line just above the AGS Excellent cut grade.

While I respect that the OP has asked our opinions, we have not seen the two diamonds side by side and can not answer for him why the gemologist made the recommendations that he made when looking at the two diamonds side by side.

Wink

Hi.

As online shoppers, we can almost never compare two stones side by side, unless we buy multiple stones and return on the vendor. I am not too sure if vendors encourage such practice.

We make assessment based on what's given to us.

That 1.37 F VS2 is the following proportions. Depth 61.7, Table 56.8, Crown 34.6, Pav 40.7. All numbers fall in the orthodox ideal ranges, with crown and pav complementing each other. It is not one of those unorthodox ideal stones with 33 crown angle and 41.2 pav angle or 36 corwn angle with 40.4 pav angle.
It is AGS 000. The proportions potentially qualify for GIA X.
HCA score is less than 2.0.
The rotating image is just fine. Superzoom is good as well. It is most likely eye-clean. The OP probably likes the appearance, thus requested a IS image
IS image looks good to me, OP, other PS member, and JA expert

With all considered, I think it is a very reasonable suggestion to make that it is a good stone to buy.
I agree with your point that not all AGS0 are equal.

 

[gr8leo87]

Both diamonds have ideal proportions with AGS 0 light performance grade. This is confirmed by IS images.
Any difference in light performance between these two diamonds will be negligible, in my opinion.

That F VS2 is a great find. You don't need to pay 10~15% "True Heart" premium.

I respect that this is your opinion, but I have seen several times when five diamonds of various AGS0 grades were put into a slotted tray and nothing was said, that the ones near the top of the cut grade were chosen far more often than those in the middle to lower portion of the cut grade. Even with AGS0 cutting there is a variance from the top of the grade to the line just above the AGS Excellent cut grade.

While I respect that the OP has asked our opinions, we have not seen the two diamonds side by side and can not answer for him why the gemologist made the recommendations that he made when looking at the two diamonds side by side.

I have not looked at the details of these two diamonds as I can not comment on them as a vendor. I can say though that I have seen visible differences in one AGS 0 to another when seen side by side, although separately they both were stunning. I have even seen one AGS0 that I thought was less than stunning, but it was a very rare exception.

You may even be right, flyingpig, that he does not need to pay the premium, but unless he actually sees both diamonds together, he can never really know whether or not he wants to pay the premium.

I will always believe that it is very hard to quantify the beauty of a diamond on paper, as there are just too many factors that the paper does not tell us.

Just my thoughts on a Friday night after a long weeks work. Looking forward to the weekend and watching my granddaughter play basketball...

Wink

+1

 

[WinkHPD]

Both diamonds have ideal proportions with AGS 0 light performance grade. This is confirmed by IS images.
Any difference in light performance between these two diamonds will be negligible, in my opinion.

That F VS2 is a great find. You don't need to pay 10~15% "True Heart" premium.

I respect that this is your opinion, but I have seen several times when five diamonds of various AGS0 grades were put into a slotted tray and nothing was said, that the ones near the top of the cut grade were chosen far more often than those in the middle to lower portion of the cut grade. Even with AGS0 cutting there is a variance from the top of the grade to the line just above the AGS Excellent cut grade.

While I respect that the OP has asked our opinions, we have not seen the two diamonds side by side and can not answer for him why the gemologist made the recommendations that he made when looking at the two diamonds side by side.

Wink

Hi.

As online shoppers, we can almost never compare two stones side by side, unless we buy multiple stones and return on the vendor. I am not too sure if vendors encourage such practice.

We make assessment based on what's given to us.

That 1.37 F VS2 is the following proportions. Depth 61.7, Table 56.8, Crown 34.6, Pav 40.7. All numbers fall in the orthodox ideal ranges, with crown and pav complementing each other. It is not one of those unorthodox ideal stones with 33 crown angle and 41.2 pav angle or 36 corwn angle with 40.4 pav angle.
It is AGS 000. The proportions potentially qualify for GIA X.
HCA score is less than 2.0.
The rotating image is just fine. Superzoom is good as well. It is most likely eye-clean. The OP probably likes the appearance, thus requested a IS image
IS image looks good to me, OP, other PS member, and JA expert

With all considered, I think it is a very reasonable suggestion to make that it is a good stone to buy.
I agree with your point that not all AGS0 are equal.

And I agree with you that it is likely a good stone for our OP to buy. I wish it was easier for people to see two diamonds side by side. It is hard to arrange most of the time, especially if you are not in the city where the vendor who has the diamonds is.

Still, it is better than it was ten years ago, yet not as good as it will be ten years from now.

Oh, I am not sure I welcomed you to Pricescope when you came, but I do welcome you and look forward to more discussions over the years to come.

Wink

 

[AnotherDiamondNoob]

I apologize again for my embarrassing mistake of mixing up the two IS images in the first post! Unfortunately, I cannot go back and edit it at this point.

The F was my first choice based on the proportions and the images/videos from JA website. While I would love to see the two diamonds side by side, it wouldn't be fair to make the vendor pay extra shipping fees.

I am going to purchase the F seeing that if there are any performance differences, they are likely to be negligible. Also, it seems to be a better value, assuming it is truly eye clean.

Thank you all for your informative replies. This forum is a truly great community that has allowed me to learn so much.