Comments on 1.61 I VS1 round

[runandjump]

Hi All,


I'm new to this forum but have been browsing diamonds on PriceScope for a couple of months now. I hope this isn't against forum rules, but I came across another website not listed in the diamond search results that seems to have a good selection and pricing. After much back and forth, I decided to order this one for $9,280:

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/Round/GIA-Certified-1-61-Carat-I-Color-VS1-Clarity-Diamond-CJFKPF

I am waiting for it to be shipped to Enchanted Diamonds for evaluation before they overnight it to me, but in the meantime I wanted to get everyones take on whether it looks like a good find. I should note that I looked at the Idealscope and ASET images, and I know it would be good if the latter had more red than green, but my g/f told me that she is not going to really care about that much detail.

In terms of my criteria:

Carat: 1.5 - 2.0
Cut: Excellent
Clarity: FL - VS2
Color: D - I
Price: $5,000 - $10,000

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

No, that is not a good one! Enchanted Diamonds DOES have some nice diamonds, but I would not recommend that stone because the cut is not good enough. I would strongly advise cancelling that one immediately, and posting any stones you are considering here before ordering!!!!

I can assure you she will care whether she has a brillant diamond that looks larger than one that is not as well cut!!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Also stay within these parameters. Stones that are too deep may face up (diameter) like a lower weight stone.

Table: 54-58

Depth: 60-62.3

crown angle: 34.0-35.0

pavilion angle: 40.6-41.0

girdle: thin, medium, slightly thick (or combo of those)

Enchanted Diamonds rating scale is helpful but not infallible. Stick with stones with 97-100 rating to start. The stone you linked is one that should be rated lower based on it's images, in my opinion.

 

[pfunk]

I agree that there are better cut diamonds out there such as this one...
https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R151-4FWJGK

Having said that... You already have it on the way and shipping to you is free as well as the return shipping if you dont like it. Around here cut is scritinized to a much higher degree than elsewhere and it is still very possible that you will find that diamond to be beautiful. I think it may be good for you to have it sent to you and see what you think of it in as many lighting environments as possible. If you don't find it beautiful you can send it back for free, but if you like it you end up saving some money and still get a stone you love. Just a thought.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I am going to have to disagree with you this time, pfunk. Most diamonds from "good" and higher are going to look just fine to people who have not really educated themselves on cut. There is zero reason to have an inferior diamond sent to him and waste that shipping money and time when I am quite sure ED has better stones, and the stone you linked is better for one.

(I am not happy with their not allowing the viewer to see the enlarged images without registering...which is one major reason I do not like recommending them at all. I shouldn't have to give them my personal information to help others choose a diamond. Other vendors do not do that.)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

This one is also better than the stone orginally posted:

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/Round/GIA-Certified-1-69-Carat-I-Color-VS2-Clarity-Diamond-SHNG6F

 

[pfunk]

I am going to have to disagree with you this time, pfunk. Most diamonds from "good" and higher are going to look just fine to people who have not really educated themselves on cut. There is zero reason to have an inferior diamond sent to him and waste that shipping money and time when I am quite sure ED has better stones, and the stone you linked is better for one.

(I am not happy with their not allowing the viewer to see the enlarged images without registering...which is one major reason I do not like recommending them at all. I shouldn't have to give them my personal information to help others choose a diamond. Other vendors do not do that.)

DS, check out this article from GOG.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/gia_ags_ideal_consumers.jsp

I'm completely in agreement with you that there are stones cut with more precision and to more "ideal" angles. But I don't think every diamond that doesnt have a perfect ASET/IS is an ugly diamond. This is still a GIA excellent cut and is so because many people have shown that they like the way these type of stones look. It is similar, though definitely different that the stone in the article I linked so it isnt apples to apples. But, to just assume it is going to be a dog not worth seeing is harsh. What is "better" or "the best" or "inferior" to you or I isn't necessarily so for everyone. That's all I'm saying. Since it wouldnt cost the OP a dime to see the stone (shipping both ways is free) I figure why not have a look. The stone I linked is $800 more and your link is $800 over budget, so if the OP likes his original choice, no sense in spending a bunch he doesn't need to.

 

[runandjump]

Sorry guys, I'm confused. The GIA cut is excellent, so why isn't the cut good enough? Also, the depth is the only thing that is outside the parameters listed above by diamondseeker, and not by much. Not trying to argue, just very confused (and worried)!

 

[D_]

GIA 3X just means that a diamond is better than most available out there.
But there is still a spectrum within GIA 3X.
If you want a diamond with a good cut, you are better off with a AGS 000s (Triple Ideal), which has a narrower range than GIA 3X.
Even within AGS 000 parameters, some diamond will be better than others.
That is why most PSers will want to look at the light performance images (ASET and Ideal Scope images) to help determine how a diamond perform, since, buying online, we are unable to judge how the stone performs with our own eyes before we purchase it. Of course vendors like ED may allow you to return the diamond for free if you don't like it, but if you can eliminate the less good ones without having them shipped to you, why go through all the hassle.

This stone has a major light leakage under the table.
Meaning, that portion of the diamond doesn't exhibit a good light return (i.e. not as bright).
Maybe it's due to steep crown and pavilion angle (thus the higher depth %).
It may also be due to pavilion digging, more of it can be found here:
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/visible_effects_painting_digging_superideal_diamonds
Maybe more experienced PSers can chime in on this.

Pfunk is correct in saying that average consumer may not notice the effect and may never notice it.
You think you have a good diamond and never visit PS again after your purchase.
Most people in your circle may not be knowledgeable about diamonds too and thus may not know if there is anything wrong with your stone.

Just like wine and art, our ability to appreciate its beauty and make distinction between the good, great and fabulous ones increase with time, exposure and knowledge. If you plan to stick around on this forum for a while longer, you may soon discover that there are better stones out there that are still within your price range. I'm with DS in that you may want to post some stones you are interested in before pulling the next trigger. We like to exchange ideas here and some content in our discussion may aid you in finding your "ideal" diamond.

 

[pfunk]

The guidelines for measurements that DS posted is to help you find stones that are likely to perform well. Images trump these guidelines as they show how the specific stone handles light. The diamond you chose shows the dreaded light leakage that DS and many others avoid and warn against. However, not everyone dislikes how these stones with leakage look. Hence the reason for incorporation into the GIA excellent cut grade.

In addition to the leakage, the diamond you picked has lots of green around the girdle, which indicates it is drawing light from less intense low angle light as opposed from stonger overhead lighting. This may lead to decreased brightness in these areas of the stone.

These are some of the reasons DS would advise you to look at a more precisely cut stone with better angles and images. Not bad advice at all to help you find the best of the best in terms of cut. But there are PLENTY of people who will find the stone you posted beautiful and everyone has a budget they must stick within. It would be great if you could go look at an ideal cut diamond in person next to a diamond such as the one you posted. This will give you an idea of whether you see a difference that warrants spending the extra money.

Since you already paid for it, and if you have a jeweler nearby who stocks AGS ideal stones, one thing you could do is take your stone in to a store and do the comparison for yourself. Then you will see for yourself what YOU think. Be mindful that they don't give their stones special treatment and that yours is perfectly clean.

Don't panic yet about your stone. Folks here are very critical about cut as this is a site where diamond cutting is the focus. Most here would gasp at the thought of a GIA "very good" cut diamond, though many people are wearing them and loving them. While the majority of people would find GIA excellent stones as beautiful, posters here like to weed out the very best GIA excellents (meaning the GIA excellents that most closely resemble AGS ideal) as the category encompasses a wide variety of "flavors" of diamonds.

If you can see yourself constantly analyzing and examining your diamond closely over its lifetime, then you may want to consider getting something closer to the pinnacle of cut perfection. If you are just looking for a pretty, sparkly rock then this one you have chosen may be just fine. Like I said, at this point it is yours to look at if you want to, and you can always return it for free. Let us know what you decide to do though!

 

[runandjump]

Thanks for the very helpful information, guys. I'm frustrated because I've invested a lot of time doing my research and I feel like it's hard to find my 'ideal' diamond. My g/f's top priority is size (carat), but it's my money being spent and I don't want to waste it on a subpar diamond. She is also open to cushions and ovals, but I can't seem to find any decent cuts. I have yet to see an ASET image for an oval, and the ASET images for the cushions always seem to indicate they are of low quality. If I can find a nice round between 1.6-1.7 carats within my price range I'd be so happy!

 

[Dancing Fire]

I am going to have to disagree with you this time, pfunk. Most diamonds from "good" and higher are going to look just fine to people who have not really educated themselves on cut. There is zero reason to have an inferior diamond sent to him and waste that shipping money and time when I am quite sure ED has better stones, and the stone you linked is better for one.

(I am not happy with their not allowing the viewer to see the enlarged images without registering...which is one major reason I do not like recommending them at all. I shouldn't have to give them my personal information to help others choose a diamond. Other vendors do not do that.)

Yup!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Hi All,


I'm new to this forum but have been browsing diamonds on PriceScope for a couple of months now. I hope this isn't against forum rules, but I came across another website not listed in the diamond search results that seems to have a good selection and pricing. After much back and forth, I decided to order this one for $9,280:

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/Round/GIA-Certified-1-61-Carat-I-Color-VS1-Clarity-Diamond-CJFKPF

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

A classic example of what PSers refer to as a "steep and deep" stone.

 

[D_]

Runandjump,

When you said you've invested a lot of time doing your research, how much time are we talking about here?
I am asking because it can take A LOT of time to find the "ideal" diamond. It's perfectly normal because it IS hard to find an "ideal" diamond.
Not only buying a diamond can be a big purchase, it usually is an emotional process too.

I easily spent more than 50 hours within a couple of months on my first diamond purchase (yes, I just slept less). There was one time I spent 3 hours in one sitting examining pictures of 2 diamonds.

I think I read on one post that Yssie, a long time PSer, spent several weeks looking for a diamond with similar qualities to hers (his?).

People's definition of "a lot of time" varies. Some people think spending ~10 hours within 2 weeks is "a lot of time" before they plop down 10G on a diamond. They may get less than stellar performers, never heard of ASET/Ideal Scope images and still be happy with their purchase and move on with their life. Of course, they could be lucky too and take home a real winner, but I would not take chances on an important decision like this.

Some people may choose to get help from advice sites (ODBA, Beyond4Cs, NiceIce, Diamondpro, Pro Diamond Advisor etc.) to find their ideal diamond if they could not afford the time to do it on their own. Even then, you still need to spend some time to make sure that one of THEIR suggested stones is YOUR ideal diamond.

Even though consumers on PS may not be diamond experts, a lot of us are here because we are passionate about diamond. We care about the details a little bit more than an average person (or it's also possible that it's more of a mind-thing and we still can't discern the minute details any better than an average consumer irl . After all, reading tens of articles daily is not quite the same with looking at tens or hundreds of diamonds daily). If you, like what you said, don't want to waste your money on subpar diamond, then you may need to be prepared to spend a bit more time and do more research.

Now, back to finding your ideal diamond. Honestly I don't see any problem here. The stone Pfunk suggested met all your criteria above. You have stated 1.5 ct - 2ct. Why suddenly it becomes 1.6-1.7? Which one is the minimum? 1.5 or 1.6? Finding the ideal diamond involves a compromise between the 4Cs and the fifth C - Cost. If cut is important to you, then you may need to go down .1ct, holding the cost constant. If carat is more important, then you have your chosen diamond which compromises on cut. If you want to have bigger diamond and better cut, then cost will invariably need to go up.

Entering your criteria on Enchanted Diamonds yields 2 stones - not too overwhelming to choose. Have you considered other vendors? Entering the same criteria on James Allen yields 39 stones. Eyeballing the diamonds should narrow it down to about 5 of them. Examining those 5 more closely and you'll find the following:
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.56-carat-i-color-vs1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-507462
It's slightly lower carat than your chosen diamond but the size is almost exactly the same since it has better proportions (look at size too, larger carat doesn't always mean bigger diamond).
The only possible downside is its slightly larger table size, which mean slightly less fire than diamonds with smaller table size (55-56%), but this is very very minor issue. What's more important is to ask JA if they can provide you with light performance images to make sure they exhibit optimal light return, whether the stone is eye-clean, and if the strong blue fluorescence makes it look cloudy/milky (fluorescence can actually make I colour stones look whiter than they are, therefore a plus - but it may not be everyone's cup of tea).

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The leakage is even visible in the photo of the diamond itself. I would have ruled it out without seeing anything else. But in looking at the images, there is so much green in the ASET where there definitely should be red.

The GIA Excellent cut range is very wide and clearly there are great stones and some that just are not up to the same standards. The AGS Ideal range is more narrow. But again, the leakage is visible in the stone photo, so numbers aren't even necessary when we can see the problems in the images.

 

[pfunk]

DS, would you consider leakage to always be a problem (aside from the contrast leakage that you might like)? Do you think some people actually prefer the look to stones with more perfect light return, such as the article I linked suggests?

 

[runandjump]

To answer D_'s question, I've been searching for diamonds daily for the past three months, and had been searching a few times a week for even longer (like 4-5 months). I overlooked what was obvious to everyone else, I get it. I've e-mailed Enchanted Diamonds asking if they can refund me instead of shipping the diamond but I have not heard back yet.

Yes, 1.5-2.0 is still my criteria, all I was saying was that 1.6-1.7 would be my ideal range within that range, for lack of a better phrase.

Thanks for everyone's feedback to date. Will keep searching and hope I get a refund soon.

 

[pfunk]

To answer D_'s question, I've been searching for diamonds daily for the past three months, and had been searching a few times a week for even longer (like 4-5 months). I overlooked what was obvious to everyone else, I get it. I've e-mailed Enchanted Diamonds asking if they can refund me instead of shipping the diamond but I have not heard back yet.

Yes, 1.5-2.0 is still my criteria, all I was saying was that 1.6-1.7 would be my ideal range within that range, for lack of a better phrase.

Thanks for everyone's feedback to date. Will keep searching and hope I get a refund soon.

I'd recommend getting in touch with them through the live chat. It will be much quicker than email and will prevent shipment if they are close to doing so already. I would also check on availability of the 1.5 carat I color than I posted quite a bit earlier if you are interested in a stone that is cut to better proportions and with better precision.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

My belief is that it is always preferable to have the best possible cut. I see people selling diamonds down the road for various reasons, and well cut stones sell pretty easily and they recoup more of the original cost. It's like choosing a new car with excellent reliability that will serve you well while you have it, and if you ever sell, it is easy to sell and you sell for a higher amount than a car with poor reliability. It just makes good sense.

 

[runandjump]

To answer D_'s question, I've been searching for diamonds daily for the past three months, and had been searching a few times a week for even longer (like 4-5 months). I overlooked what was obvious to everyone else, I get it. I've e-mailed Enchanted Diamonds asking if they can refund me instead of shipping the diamond but I have not heard back yet.

Yes, 1.5-2.0 is still my criteria, all I was saying was that 1.6-1.7 would be my ideal range within that range, for lack of a better phrase.

Thanks for everyone's feedback to date. Will keep searching and hope I get a refund soon.

I'd recommend getting in touch with them through the live chat. It will be much quicker than email and will prevent shipment if they are close to doing so already. I would also check on availability of the 1.5 carat I color than I posted quite a bit earlier if you are interested in a stone that is cut to better proportions and with better precision.

Thanks for the suggestion to get in touch via live chat. They canceled my order and will be sending me a check. I do like the 1.5 I color posted earlier, but think I might take my time and search more. I will be sure to run any potential options by this forum next time!

 

[pfunk]

My belief is that it is always preferable to have the best possible cut. I see people selling diamonds down the road for various reasons, and well cut stones sell pretty easily and they recoup more of the original cost. It's like choosing a new car with excellent reliability that will serve you well while you have it, and if you ever sell, it is easy to sell and you sell for a higher amount than a car with poor reliability. It just makes good sense.

Certainly no harm in that. Protecting others for the future is a very good idea. I was just curious if you had read that article from G.O.G before. I know you advocate for ASET or IS images before any purchase and are definitely opposed to leakage being shown in those images. The article from G.O.G goes to show, IMO, that less leakage does not equal a "better" cut that everyone will prefer. I have also read, I think in a different article from Jon, that small amounts of leakage aren't perceptible to our eyes anyhow (this stone isn't a case of small amounts of leakage just to be clear). Serg, though he doesn't come on all too often, has seemed to infer on several occasions that this "ring of leakage" isn't the detrimental horror that it gets portrayed as here. I think consumers see diamonds on a very linear scale and if we are constantly preaching that the AGS 0 with a perfect IS/ASET is "the best" they begin to think everything else is gonna be an ugly dog, getting predictably uglier the further from that image that we stray.

The OP may very well be halting the purchase on a diamond that they would have loved, and will go on to spend more more or sacrifice elsewhere else in order to get something "better". At least they will end up with a stone that most folks will find attractive.

 

[Ellen_GG_AJP]

What is everyone's opinion on the differences within triple ex cuts when it comes to real world applications? By that I mean a diamond that is set in a ring, worn daily. They get dirty very quickly, no matter how careful you are. Even touching it with a fingertip leaves a mark. Once you take that top tier cut diamond and get some fingerprint grease on it does it really look at any different than the "dog" triple ex stones?

Don't get too frustrated about cut. It's as much an art as a science. Some people only focus on the numbers - I would say obsess and over analyze but clearly you can tell my position. There is an art to it as well, someone compared it to fine wine. Not everyone agrees one wine is the best. Same thing with diamonds, I personally like a 60% depth and 60% table, some people like a smaller table, etc. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. Stating certain diamonds have whichever proportions is stating a fact. Saying that one diamond is far superior than the other is an opinion. An opinion, even an educated opinion, is just that, it's not a fact.

Your girlfriend, soon to be fiancé, doesn't really care about any of that. She's going to love whatever you give her because it's you that is giving it to her. Don't get lost in the numbers, find something you love and don't kill yourself over it.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

pfunk, it wasn't just the leakage. It was the excess of green in the ASET around the edges which indicates lesser light return than we normally see in well cut rounds. I'd much rather have very bright stone with outstanding light return at 1.5 cts than one at 1.6 that does not. All I am trying to do here is to help him get a well cut stone. I never even looked at the numbers on that stone.

I am sure she'd love a GIA Good and not know the difference. Tens of thousands of people buy ungraded or unreliably poorly cut stones from mall chain stores every year, and I am sure most of the ladies are thrilled with their rings. If someone comes to PS, I take it that they are interested in finding a nice quality stone within their budget. That's my goal to help them end up with that.

 

[John P]

DS, would you consider leakage to always be a problem (aside from the contrast leakage that you might like)? Do you think some people actually prefer the look to stones with more perfect light return, such as the article I linked suggests?

Pfunk, it may help to know the article you linked was a specific comparison of a GIA EX (41-35) with a non GIA-EX (with very painted upper halves). The author discloses this at the outset: "The 2nd stone is an AGS Ideal which doesn't make GIA's Excellent grade - because of a feature called painting..."

D_ posted this article above. It's quite relevant to the comparison you linked, as diamond #2 has at least 6 degrees of ACP.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/visible_effects_painting_digging_superideal_diamonds

I don't know of any large productions continuing to produce the second "Ideal/Non-EX" diamond used in the article, so buyers of generic "Ideals" are likely safe from those detrimental effects. Still, that survey is another good illustration of how basic numbers and even seemingly strong images might get trumped in actual viewing.

If you can see yourself constantly analyzing and examining your diamond closely over its lifetime, then you may want to consider getting something closer to the pinnacle of cut perfection. If you are just looking for a pretty, sparkly rock then this one you have chosen may be just fine.

Good context.

 

[John P]

What is everyone's opinion on the differences within triple ex cuts when it comes to real world applications? By that I mean a diamond that is set in a ring, worn daily. They get dirty very quickly, no matter how careful you are. Even touching it with a fingertip leaves a mark. Once you take that top tier cut diamond and get some fingerprint grease on it does it really look at any different than the "dog" triple ex stones?

This pairs nicely with the context pfunk added above. Indeed, many of my friends have ladies who, as you describe, always have grease and hairspray and funk on their diamonds (not pfunk...regular old nasty funk) For them, cut-quality which bedazzles the room may be far down the priority list, if they're even aware of the difference it can make.

With that said, my wife cleans her jewelry daily. She never fails to draw comments about the sparkle of her ring when we're out, which keeps her motivated to keep it dazzling. She has several like-minded friends who also keep their jewelry in pristine condition. Nothing like several ladies sitting under groovy lighting at a wine bar enjoying each others' blazing eye candy. To that crowd cut-quality is paramount.

Different strokes for different folks.

Your girlfriend, soon to be fiancé, doesn't really care about any of that. She's going to love whatever you give her because it's you that is giving it to her. Don't get lost in the numbers, find something you love and don't kill yourself over it.

Yep. Focus on the size she wants with performance that will dazzle. It's so backwards to me that many in the jewelry business emphasize color and clarity, while cut-quality is not nearly as explained (or understood). There are some buyers who will have a specific desire for DEF or VVS+. But most guys just want something that's the right size, isn't yellow and doesn't have pepper in it.

Thus: Stay safe in color and clarity but emphasize size and sparkle. After all, when she runs into the room and sticks out her hand to show her friends she's engaged...what two things are they noticing first? ...How big is it? How sparkly is it?

 

[pfunk]

DS, would you consider leakage to always be a problem (aside from the contrast leakage that you might like)? Do you think some people actually prefer the look to stones with more perfect light return, such as the article I linked suggests?

Pfunk, it may help to know the article you linked was a specific comparison of a GIA EX (41-35) with a non GIA-EX (with very painted upper halves). The author discloses this at the outset: "The 2nd stone is an AGS Ideal which doesn't make GIA's Excellent grade - because of a feature called painting..."

D_ posted this article above. It's quite relevant to the comparison you linked, as diamond #2 has at least 6 degrees of ACP.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/visible_effects_painting_digging_superideal_diamonds

I don't know of any large productions continuing to produce the second "Ideal/Non-EX" diamond used in the article, so buyers of generic "Ideals" are likely safe from those detrimental effects. Still, that survey is another good illustration of how basic numbers and even seemingly strong images might get trumped in actual viewing.

If you can see yourself constantly analyzing and examining your diamond closely over its lifetime, then you may want to consider getting something closer to the pinnacle of cut perfection. If you are just looking for a pretty, sparkly rock then this one you have chosen may be just fine.

Good context.

Correct John, it was a comparison of a stone quite similar in numbers to the OP's original stone vs. an AGS ideal with crown painting. The point was more that what one person (or lab) calls "ideal" or "the best" is not necessarily what everyone prefers. Even though the AGS stone with painting makes top grade and would be considered superior by AGS, the consumers eyes didn't agree. If the goal is to steer everyone to what AGS calls ideal and towards a cookie cutter ASET image, then it's pretty easy to steer everyone to it. But the reality is that not everyone prefers that despite the metrics indicating it is "better" at the lab.

Many consumers like stones cut like the one he had originally chosen and GIA included it in the excellent grade. Now he is cancelling it and will likely end up spending more or sacrificing elsewhere. I know everyone is trying to help and he will end up with a good looking stone, but I think sometimes we can make it too nit picky and cause more harm than good. This is why I suggested he have a look at it and try to compare it to locally available ideal stones to see if HE likes it.

 

[pfunk]

This pairs nicely with the context pfunk added above. Indeed, many of my friends have ladies who, as you describe, always have grease and hairspray and funk on their diamonds (not pfunk...regular old nasty funk)

 

[John P]

Correct John, it was a comparison of a stone quite similar in numbers to the OP's original stone vs. an AGS ideal with crown painting. The point was more that what one person (or lab) calls "ideal" or "the best" is not necessarily what everyone prefers. Even though the AGS stone with painting makes top grade and would be considered superior by AGS, the consumers eyes didn't agree.

It's not a typical ideal though. Even the labs disagree. The "typical ideal" will receive both GIA EX and AGS 0. This one didn't.

If the goal is to steer everyone to what AGS calls ideal and towards a cookie cutter ASET image, then it's pretty easy to steer everyone to it. But the reality is that not everyone prefers that despite the metrics indicating it is "better" at the lab.

As you know, that's not my goal. And I'm constantly banging the drum about the limits of lab grading and 2D images.

I'd also point out that the ASET image is not "cookie cutter." It clearly demonstrates painting out to nearly two clicks on the cutter's tang. The resulting look is not the "typical ideal." That make has a different performance character, with more fluid dispersion along the girdle, but less sharpness in the contrast pattern and - in this case where it's painted so far - a tendency to lose brightness in different lighting situations.

Many consumers like stones cut like the one he had originally chosen and GIA included it in the excellent grade. Now he is cancelling it and will likely end up spending more or sacrificing elsewhere. I know everyone is trying to help and he will end up with a good looking stone, but I think sometimes we can make it too nit picky and cause more harm than good. This is why I suggested he have a look at it and try to compare it to locally available ideal stones to see if HE likes it.

I'm with you. And I think your suggestion is sound. But the article you invoked is not comparing a 41-35 to the typical ideal or the standard ASET. It's comparing it to an odd duckling which is no longer produced in volume.

 

[pfunk]

Correct John, it was a comparison of a stone quite similar in numbers to the OP's original stone vs. an AGS ideal with crown painting. The point was more that what one person (or lab) calls "ideal" or "the best" is not necessarily what everyone prefers. Even though the AGS stone with painting makes top grade and would be considered superior by AGS, the consumers eyes didn't agree.

It's not a typical ideal though. Even the labs disagree. The "typical ideal" will receive both GIA EX and AGS 0. This one didn't.

If the goal is to steer everyone to what AGS calls ideal and towards a cookie cutter ASET image, then it's pretty easy to steer everyone to it. But the reality is that not everyone prefers that despite the metrics indicating it is "better" at the lab.

As you know, that's not my goal. And I'm constantly banging the drum about the limits of lab grading and 2D images.

I'd also point out that the ASET image is not "cookie cutter." It clearly demonstrates painting out to nearly two clicks on the cutter's tang. The resulting look is not the "typical ideal." That make has a different performance character, with more fluid dispersion along the girdle, but less sharpness in the contrast pattern and - in this case where it's painted so far - a tendency to lose brightness in different lighting situations.

Many consumers like stones cut like the one he had originally chosen and GIA included it in the excellent grade. Now he is cancelling it and will likely end up spending more or sacrificing elsewhere. I know everyone is trying to help and he will end up with a good looking stone, but I think sometimes we can make it too nit picky and cause more harm than good. This is why I suggested he have a look at it and try to compare it to locally available ideal stones to see if HE likes it.

I'm with you. And I think your suggestion is sound. But the article you invoked is not comparing a 41-35 to the typical ideal or the standard ASET. It's comparing it to an odd duckling which is no longer produced in volume.

Sorry John, I should have been more clear. I was not implying that you personally were trying to steer everyone to the same type of stone. I was referring to the usual process here at PS where someone comes looking for a round stone and they are steered to the superideal if it is in budget and if not they are steered to whatever they can find that most resembles the ASET/IS of a superideal.

Also, when I referred to "cookie cutter" I meant the typical ASET signature of a superideal stone, not the stone in the GOG article.

Regardless of what the 35-41 was compared to, there would be people who would pick it out of a lineup as their preference if you showed them several stones without telling them anything about them. Some people might even prefer it to a superideal in a side by side comparison for whatever reason may be. It's ASET has less reds and greens in the places where they "should" be so it will be dismissed by many here as inferior to an AGS ideal (even the painted one) simply because the colors don't fall in the places they should and it shows the dreaded leakage ring.

I hope I don't come across as confrontational, as it is not my intent, though I seem like I am always in disagreements. I very much appreciate your expert opinions here and the eloquence and polite manner in which you share them with us. I'm just the type to share my unfiltered opinions and try to help people find something they will be happy with while not making it stressful or making them spend more than needed.

 

[D_]

The OP may very well be halting the purchase on a diamond that they would have loved, and will go on to spend more more or sacrifice elsewhere else in order to get something "better". At least they will end up with a stone that most folks will find attractive.

Well, OP came here to get opinions on his chosen diamond.
It's ultimately his decision what to do after reading our opinions.
Let's say he never posted here, bought the diamond and loves it.
And one day someone blurted out or he heard/discovered somehow somewhere about these details. Will he just brush it off and say "meh, so what? We love it and that's all that matters"? If not, he may not be in a good position since by then they may be "stuck" with that diamond. Granted it can be more of a mind thing than a noticeable performance issue, but it may still bother him.

And I agree, OP's girlfriend/fiancee may not really care about any of that and will love whatever he gives her because it's from him, especially if she learns about his dedication and commitment through the amount of time and effort he puts in finding the ideal diamond. We need to remember though even if we say it's all about the woman, what she likes etc. that's not 100% true. As the one buying it and coughing up the dough, just like any other purchases, we want to make sure that the money is well spent, regardless of budget. I'm guessing OP wants something better than a diamond that is just "not a detrimental horror".

Good luck, OP.