Could you guys help me to select one from these?

[chap]

Would you please help me out? I have benn banging my head to search these and select them.

For some reasons, higher class of calarity and color is a bit more preferred (like D and VS2), but not a must. My target is 1 CT.

Here are the last 4 cadidates left I screened,

[L=D/VS2/VG/1.02CT]http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?track=diamond_comparison&elem=img&pid=LD01116173&filter_id=0[/L]
[L=D/VS2/VG/1.0CT]http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?track=diamond_comparison&elem=img&pid=LD00122925&filter_id=0[/L]
[L=E/S11/VG/1.0CT]http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?track=diamond_comparison&elem=img&pid=LD00366793&filter_id=0[/L]
[L=F/S11/VG/1.0CT]http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?track=diamond_comparison&elem=img&pid=LD01059597&filter_id=0[/L]

Another qustion is that all of these diamonds mention about some imperfection like crystal, indented natural, pinpoint, feather, cloud, and needle. I google around, but it seems to me that they are generally not concerned. How would you rate these "issues"? Do we need to concern them in some degress?

Thanks so much for such lengthy questions.

 

[Lorelei]

For some reason I can't get your links to work...

Generally speaking, in a VS clarity, the inclusions you mention are not an issue.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Those links don''t work, but I did a search of in-house diamonds on the search tool above, and this is the only stone that came up that met your specs. It''s a beauty, though! This vendor has a lifetime upgrade policy which I like, too.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3611/

 

[Ellen]

Hi chap,

I got your links to work finally. (only highlight from http to end of end of numbers)

Out of those, I liked the first one the best. However, it's girdle goes from thin to thick, and we pickykins prefer a bit less variance, and don't like to see it go past slightly thick. But, that won't affect it's performance, and it has a lot of potential.

The others I dismissed for various reasons, including a couple not facing up as large as they should because of depth and/or girdle thickness. Angles that I personally would want an IS on, which BN won't do, and the last one for the fact it's what is called a 60/60. Now, they can be very bright, beautiful diamonds, but they lose a bit of fire. Most people prefer a nice mix of both. Unless the intended prefers this, I'd stick with table sizes a bit smaller.


ds found a very nice one, it's more, but the cut is a bit higher on it, and you pay for that. It's up to you which way you want to go.

HTH!

ETA, ditto what Lorelei said about VS2's.

 

[Lorelei]

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-155612.htm#

This one might be a good compromise, nice cut and a lower price.

Good job on the linkies El!!

 

[chap]

Thanks so much guys. I thought it''s the second one that is the best choice. Any reason why the 2nd one is not as good as the first one?

 

[Ellen]

Hi chap,

Here's what I'm seeing when comparing 1 with 2.

1. 58 table vs. 59. While both are in GIA's range for small tables, again, we around here prefer on the smaller side of that range. Also, the table/crown angle are important to each other, and the look of the stone. The thing is, GIA rounds their numbers, so we really have no way of knowing exactly what they are. But if we look at other things, we can get a bit better idea of how well cut the stone is. Super cut stones are usually in the 54-57ish range. (but that doesn't mean you can't get a nice stone with a table larger that 57) Lastly, the smaller you go, the more it may help in the fire dept.

2. Diameter variance is much tighter in 1 (6.44 x 6.47 vs. 6.34 x 6.41) This will also help indicate how tightly cut the stone is. The closer those numbers are, the better.

3. 35/40.8 to me, is a bit safer for crown and pavillion angles than 35/40.6. Again, we don't know what they truly are. The second may be just fine, but BN is not going to give you any further information on it (the downside to that site).

4. The first is a bit bigger, for only $19 more.


So, that's why I picked 1.

 

[chap]

Ellen and guys,

Thanks again, appreciate it from the bottom of my heart.

One last thing though, I check HCA for these two "D" stones. I got the following numbers,


HCA/Light Return/Fire/Scintillation/Spread
#1:1.02ct/1.7/VG/EX/EX/VG
#2:1.00ct/1.3/EX/EX/EX/VG

Judging from HCA score from Pricescope, it seems #2 is prefered. Any final thought?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

No, the HCA score of #2 is not better than number 1. Any score between 1 and 2 is great, and a lower HCA score is not better than a higher one in that range.

 

[chap]

I receive the #2 stone, but when I check the HCA again, the score is changed from 1.7 to 2.4? Eactly the same number: Table %/Depth%/Crown degree/Pavilion degree: 58%/61.3%/35/40.8. Isn''t it weird?

Now I take a look closely, it''s eye-clean, but it seems a bit shallow. Is it an ok, or I should return it?


Link for GIA Certificate: http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD01116173&div_coll=collReport&div_exp=expReport&cert_icon=gia_zoom#grading_report

Link for the Diamond: http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?track=diamond_comparison&elem=img&pid=LD01116173&filter_id=0

 

[gontama]

You must have entered wrong table/depth percentage into the HCA (T:61.3/D:58 would give you 2.4). It is still 1.7 when you enter the correct numbers.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/30/2007 11:52:12 AM
Author: gontama
You must have entered wrong table/depth percentage into the HCA (T:61.3/D:58 would give you 2.4). It is still 1.7 when you enter the correct numbers.

Indeed!

And no, it''s not too shallow, it''s got good numbers.

Are you going to have an independant appraiser look at it? That might help alleviate any fears, and confirm you got what you paid for, plus give you an expert opinion on overall beauty.

 

[chap]

Yes, I did go to see an appraiser. She ensured me that the sizes are just about right, and not shallow at all. She mentioned that she prefers a bit bigger Table for more brilliance than light return.

She gave a "Better D" and a "Better VS2" or almost a VS1. One of measurements is a bit off. The numbers measured by the appraiser were 6.44 X 6.47 X 3.88 which are 6.44 X 6.47 X 3.96 on GIA certificate. She mentioned that it''s still within certain limit of error, and the inclusions fit the note on the certificate. I was a bit surprised that the GIA certificate number isn''t inscripted on the girdle. She also gave me an appraisal price almost 50% more than the purchase price.

Overall, she thinks it''s a good choice, and the price I paid is just almost as much as the wholesale (retail) price with a (5% ~ 10 %?) marginal profit which may be killing those jewelry stores. I guess I should be happy for the result. The only thing left is that she wasn''t able to do Ideal-Scope. I guess I need to find another way another guy to do it.

At least, for now I can feel relaxed¡K

 

[gontama]

Congtats for "better" D and "almost" VS1. I am not sure if 58% table is small. It seems already just tiny bit larger than what are ofen seen.

You can buy an ideal scope on-line at around $25 if I remember correctly. You do not need another appraiser for that purpose only.

 

[partgypsy]

If you like (love) the stone, it sounds like you made a good choice.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Congratulations! Please come back with pictures when you set your stone!!!

 

[chap]

Guys,

I made a stupid mistake. I bought the Ideal-Scope kit. The kit came with a calibration CZ and it happens to be almost the same size with my diamond. I accidentally mixed them up and I can not tell which one is which.

Any idea how to distinguish them?

 

[:)]

Oh. No. Yikes! Well, there is no fluoro in that diamond so using a uv black light is out to detect fluoro - that would have been a quick and easy way. It is a VS2 so using a loupe with untrained eyes might be difficult (but worth a shot at least) - you could go get a Loupe that is >10x and look - a cz won''t have anything in it, but a VS2 may have more at higher power (as grading is done at 10x). (or you may get lucky and be able to see that little crystal in there)
Alternatively could you take them to a jeweler (or the appraiser you used) and have them weigh them in front of you? The one that weighs 1.00 is the diamond (CZs are heavier for size)

heh heh - sometimes there is a benefit to having little birthmarks in a stone - makes ''em easier to identify!

 

[whatmeworry]

breathe on them at the same time, the CZ should stay foggy a little bit longer.

 

[Rhino]

Here''s a quick easy way to tell. Take a pen and make a dot of ink on a white piece of paper. Place both stones over the dot face down. You will see a distinct circular reflection of the dot of ink through the pavilion of the cz. In the pic below the cz is on the left.

That should help you tell the difference without a doubt.

Kind regards,

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Drop them both in a glass of water and the cz will be more noticeably more transparent.

 

[elmo]

Date: 11/8/2007 4:41:43 PM
Author: chap
I bought the Ideal-Scope kit. The kit came with a calibration CZ and it happens to be almost the same size with my diamond. I accidentally mixed them up and I can not tell which one is which.

You made my day, chap. It will make a great story to tell your future wife. This belongs in the Pricescope FAQ!

 

[chap]

It''s so hard to take proper pictures.

I didn''t addjust anything for the photo.

 

[chap]

Another photo I adjusted for the brightness and contrast...

It's nearly impossible to take perfect IS picture like what I have seen in...say Whiteflash.

 

[gontama]

I think you wanted to hear from experts about these IS images ... See what they say about them. There is no standaradized way to capture/intepret reflector images. What appears to my eye as partial leakage under the table may or may not be an issue. 35.0/40.8, in case of the steepest/deepest 35.25/40.9 considering the GIA rounding, may begin to experience partial leakage. It may or may not have visual effect.

ETA: "Whitest" area around 12 o'clock may be due to tillt when the image was taken, and the the stone may be just nice. At least symmetry looks nice to me. Hope someone can comment on them.

 

[HappyFish]

Date: 11/8/2007 4:41:43 PM
Author: chap

Guys,

I made a stupid mistake. I bought the Ideal-Scope kit. The kit came with a calibration CZ and it happens to be almost the same size with my diamond. I accidentally mixed them up and I can not tell which one is which.

Any idea how to distinguish them?

I couldn''t help laughing.

Sorry.

Good luck.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/11/2007 2:52:25 PM
Author: HappyFish

Date: 11/8/2007 4:41:43 PM
Author: chap

Guys,

I made a stupid mistake. I bought the Ideal-Scope kit. The kit came with a calibration CZ and it happens to be almost the same size with my diamond. I accidentally mixed them up and I can not tell which one is which.

Any idea how to distinguish them?

I couldn''t help laughing.

Sorry.

Good luck.

Set one for the missus, and another for the mistress?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/10/2007 10:41:57 PM
Author: chap
Another photo I adjusted for the brightness and contrast...

It''s nearly impossible to take perfect IS picture like what I have seen in...say Whiteflash.

You have a very strong light source.

All diamonds leak a bit.
this one is showing light coming from this direction below the pavilion.

 

[risingsun]

Date: 11/12/2007 7:13:10 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/11/2007 2:52:25 PM
Author: HappyFish

Date: 11/8/2007 4:41:43 PM
Author: chap

Guys,

I made a stupid mistake. I bought the Ideal-Scope kit. The kit came with a calibration CZ and it happens to be almost the same size with my diamond. I accidentally mixed them up and I can not tell which one is which.

Any idea how to distinguish them?

I couldn''t help laughing.

Sorry.

Good luck.

Set one for the missus, and another for the mistress?

Garry~you''re a naughty one, aren''t you

 

[cara]

Date: 11/12/2007 7:13:10 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/11/2007 2:52:25 PM

Author: HappyFish

Date: 11/8/2007 4:41:43 PM

Author: chap

Guys,

I made a stupid mistake. I bought the Ideal-Scope kit. The kit came with a calibration CZ and it happens to be almost the same size with my diamond. I accidentally mixed them up and I can not tell which one is which.

Any idea how to distinguish them?

I couldn't help laughing.

Sorry.

Good luck.

Set one for the missus, and another for the mistress?

Who gets which?