Confused newcomer - Please help!!

[southernbuckeye]

I have been roaming around Pricescope''s forums for weeks trying to learn as much as possible in order to educate my soon to be fiance about every little peice of information needed to pick the perfect diamond. Finally he decided to let me pick

So now I need help from the experts! I am so confused and found a couple of diamonds but there is a huge price differenct between them and I do not know if the difference between the diamonds would be noticeable to the naked eye?

We have chosen a Scott Kay setting (I will attempt to attach the picture) and were looking for a center stone with the below specs:
Budget: Under $7500

1.15-1.25 Carat
Ideal or Hearts & Arrows (something that really sparkles)
G-H
vs2 or si1

So after all of my research I found this and thought it was perfect!

Price: $7262
Report: AGS
Shape: A Cut Above H&A
Carat: 1.200
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 60.2
Table: 55
Crown Angle: 34.6
Crown %: 15.4
Pavilion Angle: 40.6
Pavilion %: 42.7
Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 6.90-6.92X4.16
http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-6117602#

But then I found this one:

Price: $6375
Report: GIA
Shape: Round Ideal Cut
Carat: 1.18
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 60.5
Table: 56
Crown Angle: 34.9
Crown %: 15.2
Pavilion Angle: 41
Pavilion %: 43.2
Girdle: Thin-Medium
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: None
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 6.89-6.93X4.18
http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-1137369.htm#

There''s almost a $1000 difference between them - both pictures look like they have the hearts and arrows and both look very eye clean (online) - is there any additional advantage to go with the H&A besides the name? Any assistance would be very helpful!!

 

[countingdown]

I like the first one.

 

[hlmr]

I''m no expert by any means - but it looks like the more expensive stone has a better cut.

Of course, that doesn''t necessarily mean it would sparkle more.

Heather

 

[strmrdr]

the second one isnt eye clean im thinking.
The black inclusion under the table is likely eye visible.

 

[kbaker]

I like the first one better too. The $1000 may seem like a big difference now, but in the end it will be worth it!
Good Luck!

 

[phoenixgirl]

When I pulled up the stones via the search by cut engine, the 1.20 got a 0.6 on the HCA and the 1.18 got a 2.0. Then when I entered the numbers off of the sarin reports, the 1.20 got a 1.2 and the 1.18 got a 1.7 (the sarin report lists the average pavilion angle as 40.9 although the range is 40.9-41 -- this 0.1 makes a 0.3 difference on the HCA). I guess that they used the AGS report, not the sarin, for the HCA number on the 1.20.

Anyway, my point is that using the HCA to tell the difference between two very well cut stones is nit-picky. I would bet that the 1.20 has a better cut than the 1.18 . . . that's why it got the "ACA" name. But, I don't know if its cut is $1k better than the 1.18 (which has the same spread so size shouldn't be an issue). For me it wouldn't. A 1.7 or a 2.0 on the HCA still mean that this stone has an excellent and rare cut.

I would ask White Flash for their opinion. Is the 1.18 eye-clean and well-cut? If so, I would opt to save the $1k and spend it on something else . . . invest it in a joint account for the two of you, or buy a nicer e-ring or wedding band, or spend it on the honeymoon. But it's your preference, of course!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/6/2005 10:06:17 AM
Author: phoenixgirl
When I pulled up the stones via the search by cut engine, the 1.20 got a 0.6 on the HCA and the 1.18 got a 2.0. Then when I entered the numbers off of the sarin reports, the 1.20 got a 1.2 and the 1.18 got a 1.7 (the sarin report lists the average pavilion angle as 40.9 although the range is 40.9-41 -- this 0.1 makes a 0.3 difference on the HCA). I guess that they used the AGS report, not the sarin, for the HCA number on the 1.20.

Anyway, my point is that using the HCA to tell the difference between two very well cut stones is nit-picky. I would bet that the 1.20 has a better cut than the 1.18 . . . that''s why it got the ''ACA'' name. But, I don''t know if its cut is $1k better than the 1.18 (which has the same spread so size shouldn''t be an issue). For me it wouldn''t. A 1.7 or a 2.0 on the HCA still mean that this stone has an excellent and rare cut.

I would ask White Flash for their opinion. Is the 1.18 eye-clean and well-cut? If so, I would opt to save the $1k and spend it on something else . . . invest it in a joint account for the two of you, or buy a nicer e-ring or wedding band, or spend it on the honeymoon. But it''s your preference, of course!

Completely agree with everything PG said......these are both well-cut stones. There''s no way to know if the inclusions are visible without asking the vendor.

If the 2nd stone is good, I''d also choose that one and put the other $1k toward something else.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/5/2005 10:25:05 PM
Author: strmrdr
the second one isnt eye clean im thinking.
The black inclusion under the table is likely eye visible.

I'd really ask the vendor about eye cleanliness.....no one here can say for sure that this diamond isn't eyeclean unless they've seen it themselves.

I'm not sure that it can be said that this inclusion is actually black, either.....the pictures aren't really an indicator of that.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/6/2005 10:29:57 AM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 7/5/2005 10:25:05 PM

Author: strmrdr

the second one isnt eye clean im thinking.

The black inclusion under the table is likely eye visible.

I''d really ask the vendor about eye cleanliness.....no one here can say for sure that this diamond isn''t eyeclean unless they''ve seen it themselves.


I''m not sure that it can be said that this inclusion is actually black, either.....the pictures aren''t really an indicator of that.

agreed its always best to ask.
If you check the cert however there is huge crystal and a huge cloud where the black spot is showing up in the pictures.
Then there is the additional clouds not shown comment.
Its an ES so an si1 is not quarenteed to be WF eyeclean as the aca''s si1''s are.
If the crystal is the grade maker and its big enough to be its eye visible most likely.
eyecleanish maybe , eyeclean i wouldnt bet on it.

I wasnt just going by the pictures but taking everything into account.

 

[Kaleigh]

I would call them and ask them to pull the stone and see if it''s eye clean or not. But I like the first stone.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/6/2005 11:32:45 AM
Author: strmrdr

If you check the cert however there is huge crystal and a huge cloud where the black spot is showing up in the pictures.
Then there is the additional clouds not shown comment.
Its an ES so an si1 is not quarenteed to be WF eyeclean as the aca''s si1''s are.
If the crystal is the grade maker and its big enough to be its eye visible most likely.
eyecleanish maybe , eyeclean i wouldnt bet on it.

I wasnt just going by the pictures but taking everything into account.

Any of the vendors here will tell you that the grading report plot isn''t necessarily representative of how a diamond''s inclusions actually look.

Additional clouds not shown does not automatically spell trouble either. In fact, I''ve seen a few diamonds bearing this comment, and they were all eyeclean.

Even making an educated assumption (taking everything into account) is no substitute for talking to the vendor about the stone. Final judgment or assertions about a stone should always be made by someone who can physically see it.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/6/2005 1:49:54 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 7/6/2005 11:32:45 AM


Even making an educated assumption (taking everything into account) is no substitute for talking to the vendor about the stone. Final judgment or assertions about a stone should always be made by someone who can physically see it.

ageed.
I think the devil just bought a snow blower

 

[rickyrockranger]

???

"huge crystal and huge cloud"?? I''m looking at the same GIA report. The red circles are NOT pictures of the clouds or crystals - they simply point out where they are.

With all due respect, this goes back to my point on another post - there is no substitute for seeing many, many diamonds day in and day out (strmrdr).

A GIA is a damn clean stone, and at 1.18 carats I''d be willing to bet the stone is eye clean, even without talking to the vendor.

 

[rickyrockranger]

And - you can''t have a huge cloud and/or huge crystal and get an SI1 grading at GIA.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/6/2005 10:55:54 PM
Author: rickyrockranger
???


''huge crystal and huge cloud''?? I''m looking at the same GIA report. The red circles are NOT pictures of the clouds or crystals - they simply point out where they are.


With all due respect, this goes back to my point on another post - there is no substitute for seeing many, many diamonds day in and day out (strmrdr).


A GIA is a damn clean stone, and at 1.18 carats I''d be willing to bet the stone is eye clean, even without talking to the vendor.

hmmm
Someone cant figure out how to read a cert then look at a picture to check out the inclusions.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/6/2005 10:56:36 PM
Author: rickyrockranger
And - you can''t have a huge cloud and/or huge crystal and get an SI1 grading at GIA.

GIA si1 diamonds can and have had eye visible inclusions.
I have seen them myself.
Ask any of the vendors here how many GIA si1 diamonds they have rejected because they were not eyeclean.
They will tell you its a bunch of them.

 

[rickyrockranger]

I can read just fine, and I studied at GIA as well, so ease up on the commentary unless you can back it up.

There are people who take video karate courses and are "black belts", and there are those who get instruction by professionals, and spar, and get bloody noses, and learn in the real world.

 

[IrishEyes]

From what I understand, strmrdr HAS learned in the ''real world''.....