Couple Questions

[ACN]

I should mention stones 4-6 are definitely eye-clean. As mentioned before, I am pretty happy with stone #2 above (H - VS2) and would like your opinions if any of these stones are "better" and worth it. If anymore information is needed regarding their specs, I will post the info on request throughout the day. Thank you in advance!

 

[Ellen]

I'd go for #5-H SI1!

 

[ACN]

Date: 5/7/2009 8:13:54 AM
Author: Ellen
I''d go for #5-H SI1!

Will there be any real noticeable difference between #2 or #5? (With the PS discounts - the difference in the stones is about ~$500).

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/7/2009 9:02:28 AM
Author: ACN

Date: 5/7/2009 8:13:54 AM
Author: Ellen
I''d go for #5-H SI1!

Will there be any real noticeable difference between #2 or #5? (With the PS discounts - the difference in the stones is about ~$500).

The only real difference visually would possibly be from the lower girdle facets. It looks like #2 has a bit shorter, so the sparkle would be a bit chunkier. But it''s hard to say because the pics were taken at two different distances it seems.

I am assuming the SI1 is less?

 

[ACN]

Date: 5/7/2009 9:19:54 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 5/7/2009 9:02:28 AM

Author: ACN

Date: 5/7/2009 8:13:54 AM

Author: Ellen

I''d go for #5-H SI1!

Will there be any real noticeable difference between #2 or #5? (With the PS discounts - the difference in the stones is about ~$500).

The only real difference visually would possibly be from the lower girdle facets. It looks like #2 has a bit shorter, so the sparkle would be a bit chunkier. But it''s hard to say because the pics were taken at two different distances it seems.


I am assuming the SI1 is less?

#2: Med to Slightly Thick - 8.23*8.25*5.07
#5: Thin to Medium, Faceted - 8.1*8.17*4.98

 

[jet2ks]

With all the info, I''d still pick the H-VS2, with two caveats. It is slightly larger and less expensive. My personal preference is also the shorter lower halves and chunkier look, so take that for what it is worth.

The two considerations that would cause me to pick the #5 would be:

-If you ever think you might want to upgrade, WF has a better upgrade policy
-What setting? If one vendor has a setting you like better, choose their stone.

This is REALLY nitpicking, however, either one will be fabulous.

 

[Ellen]

Thanks AC, but what I was referring to is not the girdle. It''s the black arrows you see in the IS pics, that determines the size of sparkle you see. They would have a measurement/number like 75 to 80.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/7/2009 9:37:57 AM
Author: jet2ks
With all the info, I'd still pick the H-VS2, with two caveats. It is slightly larger and less expensive. My personal preference is also the shorter lower halves and chunkier look, so take that for what it is worth.

The two considerations that would cause me to pick the #5 would be:

-If you ever think you might want to upgrade, WF has a better upgrade policy
-What setting? If one vendor has a setting you like better, choose their stone.

This is REALLY nitpicking, however, either one will be fabulous.

Ok, I see that now. This thread's gotten a lil confusing.

It may be half a dozen of one, 6 of the other on these stones. Then again, I would not be surprised if the WF stone was cut better, but, we have no way of knowing. jet raises some other good points to try and help you decide.

 

[ACN]

Date: 5/7/2009 9:37:57 AM
Author: jet2ks
With all the info, I''d still pick the H-VS2, with two caveats. It is slightly larger and less expensive. My personal preference is also the shorter lower halves and chunkier look, so take that for what it is worth.


The two considerations that would cause me to pick the #5 would be:


-If you ever think you might want to upgrade, WF has a better upgrade policy

-What setting? If one vendor has a setting you like better, choose their stone.


This is REALLY nitpicking, however, either one will be fabulous.

I don''t believe that I would ever return the stone for an upgrade (my FF would probably just make me go out and buy a bigger stone

) I am planning on doing a simple 6-prong solitare band (either at a local jeweler or through either dealer). I''m leaning towards a local place so that I can take the diamond to them for the free cleaning, ect.

I''m a bit confused on which diamond you consider to have that chunkier look? From my understanding, the H-VS2 (#2) will appear to be slightly larger, am I correct in this statement?

For what it''s worth:

#2:
61.50%
57.00%
34.5
40.8

#5:
61.1
55.9
40.8
34.7

Hopefully this clears up some of that confusion that I have caused!

 

[jet2ks]

FWIW, most jewelers will clean a ring for free, even if you didn't buy the ring from them.

I'd really recommend getting the setting and diamond both from the same location. You will avoid a setting charge and on the off chance a diamond was chipped during the setting process, it would be covered. If you buy the diamond online and your local jeweler damages the stone when setting it, they have no liability--you would have to have insurance on the stone in order to get it replaced.

You are correct, the H-VS2 is slightly larger in diameter and appears from the IS images to have a slightly chunkier look.

The lower half (or lower girdle) facet measurement that we are talking about is shown on a GIA cert in the lower left of the diamond diagram and will probably be either 75 or 80 (most likely 75 from the look). On an AGS cert, it is shown in the middle of the diagram and will probably be a slightly higher number, say 78, 79 or 80. WF will list it on the info page as lower girdle%

You are not going to go wrong with either stone or vendor. If all else fails, flip a coin

 

[Lula]

I just went through this lower girdle facet stuff with my stone, so maybe I can help. Gold old Gold and Whiteflash both have educational information on minor facets on their websites. Take a look at that information and you will learn about stars and lower girdle facets (lgf) and how these facets influence the look of the stone. You will also learn how to find those numbers on GIA and AGS reports. When someone says they prefer a "chunkier look" they are talking about the relative size of the flashes of fire and white sparkles. In general, stones with lower lgf (74 -76)have larger "chunks" of color and sparkle as the stone is moved in the light. In general, stones with higher lgf (77-80+) have smaller flashes of color and more areas of white pinpoint flash. If you search "lgf" or "lower girdles" or "star facets" etc. in Pricescope, you will find about 100 years'' worth of reading -- don''t get hung up on the debate the posters have in such threads, focus on the look you want for your stone!!! I can''t emphasize this enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That said, the differences in lower girdle facet lengths often affet the "look" of the stone. And, believe me, it''s a mater of personal preference which you will like. Some people may not be able to tell the difference.

My RB has 81 lgf and 55 stars and it is incredibly beautiful and breathtakingly sparkly; however, it definitely has smaller chunks of color (but more of them and more white sparkle). My stone has a beautiful arrow pattern, but the arrows are a little more difficult to see when I look at the stone because they are narrower and because there is so much pinpoint flash in the diamond. It took me awhile to get used to the look!

Again, look at some stones in person to see what you like the best and look at some of the pictures of other stones on pricescope that are similar in size to what you''re looking for. See if you can tell the differences in the size of the arrows in the pictures (there is an "arrows" thread under show me the ring forum, and also look at the picture of Dee-Jay''s stone in the show me the ring forum for a beautiful large stone with 80+ lgf).

hope that helps! btw, you can''t go wrong with either stone, #2 or #5, IMHO.

 

[ACN]

Date: 5/7/2009 11:03:34 AM
Author: jet2ks

FWIW, most jewelers will clean a ring for free, even if you didn''t buy the ring from them.

I''d really recommend getting the setting and diamond both from the same location. You will avoid a setting charge and on the off chance a diamond was chipped during the setting process, it would be covered. If you buy the diamond online and your local jeweler damages the stone when setting it, they have no liability--you would have to have insurance on the stone in order to get it replaced.

You are correct, the H-VS2 is slightly larger in diameter and appears from the IS images to have a slightly chunkier look.


The lower half (or lower girdle) facet measurement that we are talking about is shown on a GIA cert in the lower left of the diamond diagram and will probably be either 75 or 80 (most likely 75 from the look). On an AGS cert, it is shown in the middle of the diagram and will probably be a slightly higher number, say 78, 79 or 80. WF will list it on the info page as lower girdle%


You are not going to go wrong with either stone or vendor. If all else fails, flip a coin

#2: 75
#5: 79

Thanks for the advice about getting the setting and stone at the same place. I never really thought of it that way. This is going to be a tough decision, but I think I''m leaning towards one of them slightly more.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/7/2009 11:12:41 AM
Author: sarap333
I just went through this lower girdle facet stuff with my stone, so maybe I can help. Gold old Gold and Whiteflash both have educational information on minor facets on their websites. Take a look at that information and you will learn about stars and lower girdle facets (lgf) and how these facets influence the look of the stone. You will also learn how to find those numbers on GIA and AGS reports. When someone says they prefer a ''chunkier look'' they are talking about the relative size of the flashes of fire and white sparkles. In general, stones with lower lgf (74 -76)have larger ''chunks'' of color and sparkle as the stone is moved in the light. In general, stones with higher lgf (77-80+) have smaller flashes of color and more areas of white pinpoint flash. If you search ''lgf'' or ''lower girdles'' or ''star facets'' etc. in Pricescope, you will find about 100 years'' worth of reading -- don''t get hung up on the debate the posters have in such threads, focus on the look you want for your stone!!! I can''t emphasize this enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That said, the differences in lower girdle facet lengths often affet the ''look'' of the stone. And, believe me, it''s a mater of personal preference which you will like. Some people may not be able to tell the difference.

My RB has 81 lgf and 55 stars and it is incredibly beautiful and breathtakingly sparkly; however, it definitely has smaller chunks of color (but more of them and more white sparkle). My stone has a beautiful arrow pattern, but the arrows are a little more difficult to see when I look at the stone because they are narrower and because there is so much pinpoint flash in the diamond. It took me awhile to get used to the look!

Again, look at some stones in person to see what you like the best and look at some of the pictures of other stones on pricescope that are similar in size to what you''re looking for. See if you can tell the differences in the size of the arrows in the pictures (there is an ''arrows'' thread under show me the ring forum, and also look at the picture of Dee-Jay''s stone in the show me the ring forum for a beautiful large stone with 80+ lgf).

hope that helps! btw, you can''t go wrong with either stone, #2 or #5, IMHO.

I would like to clarify just a bit here. My stone has 77 (76.9) lgf, and is still the bolder flash, with some small, with nice fire. I think it''s closer to 80 and up that it becomes more noticeable.

Maybe this video will help?

http://goodoldgold.com/videos/LOWERGIRDLES.wmv

 

[Lula]

Yes, Ellen, you''re right. I should have typed 79, not 77. And it does seem that 80 and above is where the most differences show up.

That''s a great video to demonstrate the diffs between arrows, brightness, color, type of flashes. But a note to the OP, remember what Rhino says in the video -- it gets down to hair-splitting at some point, one stone is not "better" than the other, they just look different. And other posters can weigh in here, but it doesn''t seem like there''s a whole lot of difference in the arrow size of the two stones you''re looking at; we''re not talking extremely wide versus extremely narrow arrows.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/7/2009 11:48:39 AM
Author: sarap333
Yes, Ellen, you''re right. I should have typed 79, not 77. And it does seem that 80 and above is where the most differences show up.

That''s a great video to demonstrate the diffs between arrows, brightness, color, type of flashes. But a note to the OP, remember what Rhino says in the video -- it gets down to hair-splitting at some point, one stone is not ''better'' than the other, they just look different. And other posters can weigh in here, but it doesn''t seem like there''s a whole lot of difference in the arrow size of the two stones you''re looking at; we''re not talking extremely wide versus extremely narrow arrows.

No biggy.

And yes, we are "possibly" splitting hairs here, without knowing the true measurement of the GIA stone. (they round) If we''re looking at 74 vs. 79, yes, there''s a definite difference. 77 vs. 79, not really.

And I hope I didn''t make this harder, I just answered honestly to the questoin of what would be different between the two. Maybe I should have said, nothing.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/7/2009 12:18:57 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 5/7/2009 11:48:39 AM

Author: sarap333

Yes, Ellen, you're right. I should have typed 79, not 77. And it does seem that 80 and above is where the most differences show up.


That's a great video to demonstrate the diffs between arrows, brightness, color, type of flashes. But a note to the OP, remember what Rhino says in the video -- it gets down to hair-splitting at some point, one stone is not 'better' than the other, they just look different. And other posters can weigh in here, but it doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of difference in the arrow size of the two stones you're looking at; we're not talking extremely wide versus extremely narrow arrows.

No biggy.

And yes, we are 'possibly' splitting hairs here, without knowing the true measurement of the GIA stone. (they round) If we're looking at 74 vs. 79, yes, there's a definite difference. 77 vs. 79, not really.


And I hope I didn't make this harder, I just answered honestly to the questoin of what would be different between the two. Maybe I should have said, nothing.

depends on the c/p angle combination some combos are more sensitive to it than others.
The 2 stones in question anything between 75 and 80 isn't going to make a lot of difference. Most people will never notice.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/7/2009 12:34:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/7/2009 12:18:57 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 5/7/2009 11:48:39 AM

Author: sarap333

Yes, Ellen, you''re right. I should have typed 79, not 77. And it does seem that 80 and above is where the most differences show up.


That''s a great video to demonstrate the diffs between arrows, brightness, color, type of flashes. But a note to the OP, remember what Rhino says in the video -- it gets down to hair-splitting at some point, one stone is not ''better'' than the other, they just look different. And other posters can weigh in here, but it doesn''t seem like there''s a whole lot of difference in the arrow size of the two stones you''re looking at; we''re not talking extremely wide versus extremely narrow arrows.

No biggy.

And yes, we are ''possibly'' splitting hairs here, without knowing the true measurement of the GIA stone. (they round) If we''re looking at 74 vs. 79, yes, there''s a definite difference. 77 vs. 79, not really.


And I hope I didn''t make this harder, I just answered honestly to the questoin of what would be different between the two. Maybe I should have said, nothing.

depends on the c/p angle combination some combos are more sensitive to it than others.
The 2 stones in question anything between 75 and 80 isn''t going to make a lot of difference. Most people will never notice.

I knew that.

But I still think, given the stones, that one could notice a difference between the ratios I gave (74 vs. 79). But maybe that''s just me.