Choice of 2 Diamonds

[jorgep]

Please let me know your thoughts on these diamonds.

#1
HCA 0.4
Color D
Clarity VS2
Carat 1.19
Depth 60.7%
Table 56.0%
Pavillion angle 40.5
Crown angle 34.8
Cut Ideal
Symmetry and Polish Excellent (GIA)
Cutlet none
Flourescence none
Girdle Thin to Medium
Measurements 6.86 x 6.91 x 4.18
Price $8,600

#2
HCA 1.3
Color G
Clarity VS2
Carat 1.31
Depth 61.1%
Table 55.0%
Pavillion angle 40.8
Crown angle 34.6
Cut Ideal
Symmetry and Polish Excellent (GIA)
Cutlet none
Flourescence negl
Girdle Slightly thick
Measurements 7.04 x 7.09 x 4.32
Price $8,200

Price is not an issue to me. I''d rather have the best stone available.
#1 is smaller, but D color
#2 is larger, but 1.31 carats

Also, can I go wrong with either of these two?

Thanks again,
JorgeP

 

[jorgep]

Also, I don't think either are H&A, but I can't tell. Should I keep looking for H&A instead?

Sorry for all of the questions,
JorgeP

 

[magna2]

jorgep,

Both stones appear exceptional - I don't think you can go wrong with either one. They are both worth taking a personal look - meaning seeing it in person. Which diamond is the better one is all subjective.

As for, H&A. It is all a matter of personal choice. H&A does not mean that it'll outperform non-H&A stones. It just means that they have exceptional optical symmetry. If you value having a H&A pattern then by all means purchase a H&A stone. If you just care that it is a well cut stone, then the two that you have so far identified will most likely do fine.

And for your question on which one of the two. Again, personal choices. Do you value color more than size? Will you be able to discern the color differences? If not, then go with the 1.31 ct/G stone. Represents a better bargain - regardless whether price is an issue or not.

 

[aljdewey]

I second everything Magna said, and I too would go with the G stone as it represents what I think is a better value.

 

[Giangi]

I'd get the D. The size difference is not that apparent, but believe me you'll see a color difference between a D and a G color diamond. Also, I like the proportions better on stone #1.

But they are both really great stones!

 

[jorgep]

Can I assume that I can't go wrong with either of these 2?

 

[Rhino]

Something else to consider on your hunt....




While both stones have what appears to be good numbers we can't neglect the impact that optical symmetry has on the appearance of a diamond.




Good proportions, or what I would consider cherry proportions will generally guarantee a stone with very good to excellent reflective abilities in direct light conditions. Hence diamonds that do well on the HCA or have good images in LightScope will generally be *fiery* in direct light conditions. Direct light conditions emphasize colored light return, fire, dispersion, and scintillation within a diamond and is dependant upon how much light (and the intensity of it) is directed through the crown. The stronger the light source the more fire and flashes you'll see. A diamond does not require precision cutting or superior craftsmanship to attain what many may considere a "very good" or "excellent" LightScope/FireScope/IdealScope (red reflector) image and a great HCA score.




Here is an example of what I'm talking about. This diamond on the left is scores a 1.0 on the HCA with 4 "Excellents" (a .85ct E SI1). The diamond next to it scores a 1.6 with 1 "Excellent" and 3 "Very Goods" (a 1.01ct G VS1). (BrillianceScope results on the 2 stones are outstanding as well). These 3 optical tests of a. HCA b. LightScope/FireScope c. BrillianceScope reflect how the diamond will appear in direct light conditions.


/idealbb/files/br85esi1ls.jpg/idealbb/files/br101gvs1ls.jpg




Both of these diamonds will appear very fiery in direct light conditions and both stones have very good (one is definetely more excellent) reflective abilities (the 1.6).




Take these diamonds away from strong light conditions and into more normal viewing conditions (office lighting, ambient lighting, diffuse lighting conditions) and the diamond on the right KICKS THE OPTICAL BEHIND off of the stone on the left. It's contrast is way more beautiful and in the softer light conditions will put it to shame as you can observe the beautiful precision of it's symmetry in those conditions. The Isee2 analysis reflects the appearance of the stone in these softer light conditions as it takes into account issues of contrast (depth and amount of) in soft light conditions & precision of it's optical symmetry. Rewarding the cutter talented enough to attain such and ultimately the consumer who gets to enjoy the benefits of such craftsmanship.




The typical advice of most consumers on this board (and most forums) would be to councel the person into the "1.0 with 4 Excellents" resting assured they've given the *best* advice. I'm sorry but I can't go along with that. It is easier to find a diamond that looks it's best in direct light conditions but suffers in others. It is much more difficult to find a diamond that looks it's best in all light conditions. The HCA does not take into account this feature of "craftsmanship" and the execution to which it's been attained. Should you consider a diamond with superior optical symmetry over a common diamond with "good numbers"? My answer to this is obvious.




/idealbb/files/diffuselight-copy.jpg




My .02c




Rhino

 

[glitterata]

Doesn't look all that obvious to me. Which one are we supposed to like better? Are you saying the little one? To me, the big one looks just as good in that second picture. And if you tilt the stone a bit, the star goes away anyway, right? So unless you're looking at it straight on, does it really matter? Are you saying that the more symmetrical one will have more fire and brilliance in low light, or just that it'll look more symmetrical?

 

[Rhino]

Both. I'm not just talking low light conditions either but more common light conditions. Not everyday are we out in bright direct sunlight or halogen lights. And when people, especially fiance's, look at their diamond they look into the face of them in these more common light conditions. We don't coerce anyone into anything however. We teach and show and let people make up their own minds. But to *value* 2 diamonds equally or say they will be equally as beautiful if we are only bearing in mind one light condition, and to base a decision on #'s alone can be a mistake when optical symmetry is not accounted for. I'm not here to argue the point but to make it and my peers know it's a fact. There are some companies not fond of the HCA because of this very reason. It leads consumers to believe 2 diamonds are of equal value and beauty when the case can be entirely different. One of those diamonds has very poor craftsmanship and the other is in a class all by itself. My point is you'd never know that from just Sarin numbers alone OR a seemingly great HCA score.




Rhino

 

[Rhino]

And please... my post is not meant to offend the many wonderful people here on PriceScope who come here with willingness to *help* consumers and only have their best interests in mind. In that regards this forum is 2nd to none as there are many kind people here who are willing to help. And also to Gary who is the genius behind the HCA. It has it's merits but if I am to say the positive I must also give the balance of that. I get to analyse and test many stones and we run quite a bit through the HCA because it's fun to see what score it gets.




However when it comes to multi-thousand dollar decisions that require my hard earned capital it's definetely not the last word and if a consumer is going to use it to *help* in their decision these are some facts they should be made aware of as well as the good points.




Peace,


Rhino

 

[valeria101]

Both stones seem great and GOG's posts need taken into the store while stones are set side-by-side (if you can do that, which should be possible somehow) awaiting judgement. My feel is that, unless the pieces look like those in GOG's picture in real life, one may not pick up any difference between them aside size (and that is not even a mm!). So? How about a pair of dice?

 

[magna2]

Rhino,

Your point is well taken. But does a H&A diamond mean it'll outperform diamonds that are non-H&A? My suspicion is no because it still comes down to the facets and angles.

Have you had a chance to do a ISEE2 comparison of 8* and H&A-type diamonds? Curious in what the ISEE2 will reveal.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

 

[diamondsman]

I like the second stone , but I don't like the flour. Is that a G.i.a? they don't write negl. on the flour.
if it is strong blue, than I would go with the first one.
Please verify

good luck

 

[pricescope]

Diamondsman, Negligible is the term used by AGS now. It unites former Inert and Faint grades.

 

[Rhino]

 

[Mara]

G all the way. I like the size and yes there will be a visible differerence between the size of the two stones.

Interesting points Rhino...that right scope image is much better than the one on the left. So what do you advise for consumers who come on here with ONLY the numbers and the HCA score, no ISee2 and no IdealScope images. We get those people ALOT on this forum. Should we tell them we really can't help? Or help with the best of our knowledge using HCA and numbers, and tell them to get the stone independently appraised to get that final data?




Sometimes you have to make a call based on the information you DO have, which is more often than not the case here on Pscope...people don't always work with the vendors who have ALL the data--so what is the best call to action at that point? If HCA and #'s are all we have to go on when people ask us what we think...what do we answer? Most everyone on this forum just wants to be of assistance as you note, and in the 90% of times when there is limited data to go on, what should the consumer use for help?

 

[canadiangrrl]

D.

 

[jorgep]

Just got the Sarin report back on #1 and bummer...

AGS 2 Stone - Pavillion 42.1%

#1
HCA 0.4
Color D
Clarity VS2
Carat 1.19
Depth 60.7%
Table 56.0%
Pavillion angle 40.5
Crown angle 34.8
Cut Ideal
Symmetry and Polish Excellent (GIA)
Cutlet none
Flourescence none
Girdle Thin to Medium
Measurements 6.86 x 6.91 x 4.18
Price $8,600

GOG says pavillion depth is key.
Can I get new comments on this stone with this new info.

Also, I have the same dilemna as Mara's comment
"Sometimes you have to make a call based on the information you DO have, which is more often than not the case here on Pscope...people don't always work with the vendors who have ALL the data--so what is the best call to action at that point? If HCA and #'s are all we have to go on when people ask us what we think...what do we answer?"

Thanks,
JorgeP

 

[anital]

From your 2 choices I'll pick the color D one. The color of a diamond is very important because when you put a D and a G next to each other you can see the G is yellow. A valuable diamond needs to be colorless too. Second choice even though it is bigger, but the size is not everything. You can get a big diamond and if the color is low and clarity is low, it doesn't make the diamond any better. Can't you tell the first one cost more even though it's smaller? The second one cost less and it's bigger and that's because you're getting a colorless diamond.

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 10/30/2003 7:08:15 PM anital wrote:











From your 2 choices I'll pick the color D one. The color of a diamond is very important because when you put a D and a G next to each other you can see the G is yellow. A valuable diamond needs to be colorless too

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

I beg to differ here...a G is NOT yellow! A G is the top of the near colorless range. Hardly yellow. My G is extremely white and we saw no difference between an E and my G unset in various lighting circumstances. Some people may note a difference between something like a D and a G but it won't be 'colorless' to 'yellow'..there may be a tinge of color to *some* eyes...but everyone is different. So to say that a G is yellow is a huge blanket statement...and misleading IMO.

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 10/30/2003 6:43:47 PM jorgep wrote:





Just got the Sarin report back on #1 and bummer...

AGS 2 Stone - Pavillion 42.1%

#1
HCA 0.4
Color D
Clarity VS2
Carat 1.19
Depth 60.7%
Table 56.0%
Pavillion angle 40.5
Crown angle 34.8
Cut Ideal
Symmetry and Polish Excellent (GIA)
Cutlet none
Flourescence none
Girdle Thin to Medium
Measurements 6.86 x 6.91 x 4.18
Price $8,600

GOG says pavillion depth is key.
Can I get new comments on this stone with this new info.

Also, I have the same dilemna as Mara's comment
'Sometimes you have to make a call based on the information you DO have, which is more often than not the case here on Pscope...people don't always work with the vendors who have ALL the data--so what is the best call to action at that point? If HCA and #'s are all we have to go on when people ask us what we think...what do we answer?'

Thanks,
JorgeP
----------------

Jorge,

How funny!!! The people who gave you that Sarin were not aware that AGS has changed their grading standards earlier this year. They used to use pavilion depth as a determining factor and the tolerances were 42.2 - 43.8%. They have since changed that to angles (more accurate assessment) and the tolerance is 40.2 - 41.2 degrees. So although the person you got it from is not up on the data the stone does actually fall into the AGS "0" range now. This tells me that report is probably over a year old.

Now to the meat. You happen to have a set of proportions there that will produce a nice fiery stone in direct light conditions. How beautiful the stone will appear in other light conditions (diffuse/ambient/office etc.) will be impacted by the diamonds optical symmetry which will play a factor in determining how brilliant the stone will appear in those conditions. There is no way of knowing that without a physical analysis of the stone.

The post I made earlier in this thread showing 2 different LightScope images are 2 possibilities of what you may have. One is more beautiful in softer light conditions but in direct light both are fireballs.

My .02c

Rhino

 

[jorgep]

Rhino,
Do you have the link to the new standards or a copy of them?

Thanks,
JorgeP

 

[Rhino]

https://www.pricescope.com/tutor_agsideal.asp

 

[jorgep]

Rhino,
The people who gave me that Sarin was Blue Nile. Even stranger, the GIA report is from 9/25/03. I can't tell when the Sarin report was run.

I don't really want to buy from BN, but their price and the specs seem good on this stone. They are usually 15% higher than those vendors who post here.

Diamondsman,
Sorry. Stone #2 is flor - None. GIA report.

JorgeP

 

[diamondsman]

I would go with number 2

good luck