Compare the following two Idealscope images

[regularsfguy]

OK, so I think I've got it narrowed down to two I/SI2 RBs, and I wanted to see if people preferred one Idealscope image over the other. Both graded out well on HCA. One is slightly larger and the price difference is close enough, that if both look good, I will probably go with the larger one.

Here are the two Idealscope images. Thanks in advance!

 

[yssie]

can't tell if first stone is painted or if the saturation/contrast is dialed up too pink in the pic
what lab evaluated this stone? Brillianteering noted on the report?

second is fine

 

[regularsfguy]

Hi Yssie,

The first Idealscope image was sent to me by a B&M jeweler, so they may have screwed up the settings. It's GIA, and I am trying to get the report number, but I don't have it yet. Does GIA note brillianteering on its reports?

 

[yssie]

Hi Yssie,

The first Idealscope image was sent to me by a B&M jeweler, so they may have screwed up the settings. It's GIA, and I am trying to get the report number, but I don't have it yet. Does GIA note brillianteering on its reports?

yes - GIA will demote cut grade at the slightest provocation wrt to brillianteering (which is not always a bad thing). AGS is considered more - critical.

On second look I'm thinking it's just a not-so-great picture though - contrast *is* visible at the top of the stone, just too pale because the background colour is too similar. Have you seen the stone in person, and do you like it?

 

[Amys Bling]

Hi Yssie,

The first Idealscope image was sent to me by a B&M jeweler, so they may have screwed up the settings. It's GIA, and I am trying to get the report number, but I don't have it yet. Does GIA note brillianteering on its reports?

yes - GIA will demote cut grade at the slightest provocation wrt to brillianteering (which is not always a bad thing). AGS is considered more - critical.

On second look I'm thinking it's just a not-so-great picture though - contrast *is* visible at the top of the stone, just too pale because the background colour is too similar. Have you seen the stone in person, and do you like it?

agree. the backgroung color is throwing me off and I am wondering if that is why the contrast doesn't seem to be bright enough.

 

[regularsfguy]

I'm going today to see the first stone in person, but if you both think that it doesn't look as nice as the Idealscope image of the second stone, then I'll probably go with the second one. All of these look great to me in real life, but I really want to get the best one I can for my fiancee.

I finally got the specs on both stones. The first stone is a GIA-certified 1.12 I/SI2, with the following specs:

D: 62
T: 55
C Angle: 34.5
P Angle: 40.8
Med-Slightly Thick girdle
6.63 x 6.68 x 4.12mm
1.3 on HCA
Nothing on the GIA report about brillianteering

The second stone is an AGS-certified 1.207 I/SI2, with the following specs:

D: 61.4
T: 55.6
C Angle: 34.7
P Angle: 40.8
Thin-Medium Faceted girdle
6.84 x 6.86 x 4.21mm
1.3 on HCA

Both are eye-clean, close in price (larger is a little more), excellent cut/polish/symmetry, and no/negligible florescence.

Thanks for your input!!

 

[yssie]

I'm going today to see the first stone in person, but if you both think that it doesn't look as nice as the Idealscope image of the second stone, then I'll probably go with the second one. All of these look great to me in real life, but I really want to get the best one I can for my fiancee.

I finally got the specs on both stones. The first stone is a GIA-certified 1.12 I/SI2, with the following specs:

D: 62
T: 55
C Angle: 34.5
P Angle: 40.8
Med-Slightly Thick girdle
6.63 x 6.68 x 4.12mm
1.3 on HCA
Nothing on the GIA report about brillianteering

The second stone is an AGS-certified 1.207 I/SI2, with the following specs:

D: 61.4
T: 55.6
C Angle: 34.7
P Angle: 40.8
Thin-Medium Faceted girdle
6.84 x 6.86 x 4.21mm
1.3 on HCA

Both are eye-clean, close in price (larger is a little more), excellent cut/polish/symmetry, and no/negligible florescence.

Thanks for your input!!

Well - the IS doesn't look as nice, but WF has invested probably thousands in their photography setup and equipment, and if your local place was doing it on the fly after ten minutes prep that's not a surprise I'm frankly impressed that they gave it a shot - the willingness to work with you says a lot! The stone itself looks fine - and the added note that the GIA report says nothing about brillianteering tells us that those particular artifacts are in the photography, and that was my only concern. I would now judge by price, vendor services, trade-in/return/upgrade policies, etc.

I will say that having a trusted local jeweller can be very beneficial, if you plan to stay in the area for any length of time. You don't want to be shipping your ring across the country to WF every time you need your prongs tightened.. but, if you are looking for H&A, the WF ACA will have nice hearts and you'd have to check the local one under a hearts viewer - but unless it's been manufactured as a H&A, it probably won't match up. Keep in mind that H&A stones command a premium, so if they're close in price but one is H&A and the other is not...

all in where your priorities are

 

[regularsfguy]

Thanks for the feedback!

I saw the B&M stone in person, and it's very nice. BUT the price is the same as the WF one, which is a little larger (1.12 vs. 1.207), so with everything else being pretty much equal, I am going to go with the WF stone.

I'm going to be setting whichever stone I choose in an ER through my B&M place, so I'll have them as a place to go for service, etc. for a long time. They have been great, and are super Pricescope-friendly. They've been recommended on here by others before, but once I'm all done, I'll name names so they can get their due credit again.

 

[slg47]

before you get the WF stone you may want to check on any fees for setting outside stones at your B&M.