shape
carat
color
clarity

crunch time - do you like these 2 diamonds?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

rothko

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
21
Hi all,

Thanks for the great response last week. Alas, the diamond I wanted was sold before I got to it!

Here are some runner ups:

look here
SuperbCert
1.3
VS2
K
Medium Blue Flourescence
Depth: 61.0
Table: 55
Crown Angle: 34.3
Crown Height: 14.8
Pavil. Angle: 40.9
Pavil. Depth: 43.2

BS: VH VH VH
HCA: 1.3 EX EX VG VG

$4885

I talked to Barry at SC and he told me it was eye clean and white facing

910.jpg

910.jpg

910.jpg



GOG
look here
1.21
VS1
J
Faint Flourescence
Depth: 60.9
Table: 55
Crown: 34.3
Pavil: 40.7
BS: VH VH VH
HCA: 0.8 EX EX EX VG
Isee2 9.7

$5538

BR121JVS1-3.jpg

BR121JVS1-HEARTS.jpg

BR121JVS1-ARROWS2.jpg

BR121JVS1-LTSC.jpg


Again, eye clean and white face.


I'm most worried about the color, I think K is really really pushing it.
However, the SC stone is almost $800 less and is a good bit bigger!

My total budget (ring and setting) is $6500. So if I go the SuperbCert diamond, I could potentially get a really nice Tiffany style setting (not the much cheaper 6 prong settings).

I guess its pretty obvious where my priorities lie. I want the biggest, most brilliant diamond for under 6k as long as I can't see any occlusions and the untrained eye can't tell that's its colored.

Also, it seems like SuperbCert is generally cheaper (~500) than GOG? Any ideas why?

gulity feeling
I feel really bad, because Jonathan has spent a good deal of time with me answering questions and such, but he doesn't have the diamond I want at the moment...
/guilty feeling
What do you guys think? Mucho thanks for all the advice and help so far!
 
I would go with the J...
1) whiter (J with faint fluorescence)
2) cleaner
2) better HCA
3) you like Jonathan, he spent time for you and his diamond is breathtaking.
 
Well, I actually like the fact that the 1.3 K has medium florescence. I think that florescence can actually help I/J/K diamonds and I would like more floreschence in the 1.3 K.

I should add that I'm not saying superbcert hasn't been as responsive. Its just that I didn't realize that they do the same kind of analysis as GOG.

On that note, what other internet dealers do as much analysis (BrillianceScope, Isee2, etc) as SuperbCert and GOG?
 
I think the SuperbCert K looks great on paper. Can you have it sent to an independent appraiser to see it? Like you said, it's a great size for the $.
 
I think you should send both to an appraiser and look at them there. The J could be closer to an I, and the K could be closer to an L, which could make a difference, or they could be very close in color....

It really depends on your color perception, but hey, everything H and lower is yellow to me
twirl.gif
but I hear I'm in the minority.
 
Can an appraisor do the Brilliant scope for you?
 
----------------
On 4/18/2004 7:23:01 PM longtimelurker wrote:

I think you should send both to an appraiser and look at them there. The J could be closer to an I, and the K could be closer to an L, which could make a difference, or they could be very close in color....

---------------


Good point & the fluor could make the K face up great. Is it possible to see *both* stones?

Edited to add: What color metal are you going to set the stone in?
 
I could get both diamonds into an appraiser in Boston, but that really means that I'm giving one of these guys (Barry or Jonathan) the run-around, and I really really don't want to do that.

Moreover, I'm not all the excited about the 1.21 VS1 J anymore. I feel like I can get a visually comparable stone for less, (i.e. 1.22 IS1 K for 4700) or I could spend the same amount of money and get a bigger stone with comparable optics.

....If I didn't have such strict budget and time constraints, I would gladly buy a 1.3 super-ideal VS1 G for 7k and call it a day... alas...

(anyone on these boards in boston? I'm a block over from the marathon near 200m from the end and roar is deafening... I think the elite women just ran by)
 
Hi, Roth: Yes, I'm in the Boston area.....crazy today, huh?




Anyway.....here's one you may not have seen by WF.....GREAT idealscope. Blends the bigger size with the better color and falls right in between on price!




1.32, J, VS2 for $5255.


http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-629964.htm#




Granted......WF doesn't have the B/scope....but honestly, you're buying the diamond, not the report. She won't wear the b/scope report on her hand.....she's gonna wear the diamond.




If the b/scope is critically important to you, though, you could always send the rock to RockDoc (Bill Lieberman). He's an appraiser in Florida who does do the b/scope. In fact, I think WF will allow you to ship it to him for evaluation prior to purchasing the stone, too.




Good luck.
 
Hi aljdewey,

Nice find! It definitely fits my criteria and I'll have to give this one some though too.

The only reason I keep bringing BScope up is because its a quantitative way to compare brilliance/scintillation/etc. I know its not perfect, but so far, I haven't heard anyone who said they got a BS: VH VH VH rock and then when they saw the rock it wasn't all that great... y'know what I mean?

You're right though... its not the reports she'll be wearing, so at some point, I just gotta say this is as good as it gets and get the ring on her finger!
 
I believe you could have both stones from GOG and SC sent to appraisor, both co's are OK with it, I think, check it out, they understand there is competition in the business.
 


----------------
On 4/19/2004 2:24:20 PM rothko wrote:





Hi aljdewey,

Nice find! It definitely fits my criteria and I'll have to give this one some though too.

The only reason I keep bringing BScope up is because its a quantitative way to compare brilliance/scintillation/etc. I know its not perfect, but so far, I haven't heard anyone who said they got a BS: VH VH VH rock and then when they saw the rock it wasn't all that great... y'know what I mean?

You're right though... its not the reports she'll be wearing, so at some point, I just gotta say this is as good as it gets and get the ring on her finger!
----------------

Roth, I do know what you mean to a point. But at the end of the day, the most important thing is the *stone*.



The problem, though, with "quantifiable" systems is that we become obsessed with getting "perfection", and we are duped into thinking that anything less than a PERFECT score is inferior, and that's simply not so. If a diamond scored a 9.9 instead of a 10, would it really be visibly less beautiful? I doubt it.



Do you really think there's a hugely discernable difference between diamonds that score a 1.9 or a 2.1 on the HCA?



These tools are great to have, but I honestly believe they aren't worth sacrificing what will be VERY noticeable - the color.



All of these diamonds are well cut, and as long as you're going to an appraiser anyway, you're golden. He'll let you know if the diamond doesn't perform as well as it should. All of these vendors have great return policies, too, so it's not like you have to worry about making an irrevocable mistake. Keep that in mind as you shop.....get what you think best fits your criteria secure in the knowledge that you can return the stone if it's not what you hoped for.



 
I like the J VS from GOG. It is SO clean.
1.gif
But the K is attractive too. The medium fluorescence kinda does it for me. BUT... From the side it's always a K. I don't know if that would bother you. I'd suggest you have a look around to see what a K looks like and if you like it. It's not for everyone. But if you like it, it's a great way to save $$$!
9.gif
Have you considered going with an SI2, H or something like that? It could make the list of possible choices wider!
1.gif
 
B-scope or no B-scope....

It seem sthat highest B-scope marks also correlated with the H&A standard. besides, the scores seem to be more telling on what the stone looks like in direct light, and this is why the Isee was supposed to be more realistic.

If you go through the full story on those 'red pictures' (Iscope and H&A viewer) you may see that details of those can be interpreted as indications of brilliance (not just light return). Also, the HCA score includes some rating of fire and scintillation...

So, I wander wether the Bscope adds that much more (aside the nice presentation
1.gif
).

K color sounds good to me. Between these theree stones listed here, you may want to consider wether that size difference (mm of diameter that is) is really meningful at all: wether it would really show on hand or just in some side by side comaprison of the stones - which would not happen again once those are taken out off the store.

Just my o.2, of course.
 
----------------
On 4/2/2004 10:52:37 AM Rhino wrote:

A little PS ... I LOVE the particular angles that Paul chose to cut this stone too as well. 34.3/40.7 is one of my favs.
1.gif

----------------


That's what Jonathan said about my new 3ct-diamond.

I have to agree.

I still prefer Jonathan's J-VS1.
The last one, from Whiteflash, isn't ideal for me (34.9-40.9).
 
----------------
On 4/19/2004 3:03:42 PM Giangi wrote:

I like the J VS from GOG. It is SO clean.
1.gif
But the K is attractive too. The medium fluorescence kinda does it for me. BUT... From the side it's always a K. I don't know if that would bother you. I'd suggest you have a look around to see what a K looks like and if you like it. It's not for everyone. But if you like it, it's a great way to save $$$!
9.gif
Have you considered going with an SI2, H or something like that? It could make the list of possible choices wider!
1.gif
----------------


I would LOVE to find a really really well cut eye-clean SI2/SI1 H/I that's >1.25 and <6k.

Unfortunately, I have yet to find a stone with these specs.

It seems that people don't tend to cut SI1-SI2 stones as well as stones with less occlusion. I guess it must be that to the lay person clarity and color are more important than cut and most diamonds are bought by people who don't do much research.
 
Ugh... that fluorescence!

Whatever it might do to the stone, I would not bank on it. The phenomenon shows just as well from any side of the stone (since it is a property of the material and has preciously little to do with the cut). But the main thing about it is... that it rarely is significant at all. A great topic to chat about, but really not much to see at all, unless one turns off all lights and get the UW lamp out!

You must have heard by now about the dreaded "milky" diamond - well, it's hard to find one and if you do, it would surely not be called "medium blue fl" - but more likely outglow even the average "strong". For the many such stones slandered for fluorescence here and there, GIA could no assemble a large enough sample of such stones to run a statistical study.

If fluorescence shows in this K stone, it would take quite some peculiar lighting conditions and a long, hard, look.

On the other hand, this stone has no reason to look ugly - it would not be whiter than a D color, but would most likely outshine lots of whiter
9.gif
diamonds until you will find a match for it outside this diamond tech-crazed forum
rolleyes.gif
 
----------------
On 4/19/2004 3:12:48 PM rothko wrote:

----------------

I would LOVE to find a really really well cut eye-clean SI2/SI1 H/I that's >1.25 and <6k.

Unfortunately, I have yet to find a stone with these specs.

It seems that people don't tend to cut SI1-SI2 stones as well as stones with less occlusion. I guess it must be that to the lay person clarity and color are more important than cut and most diamonds are bought by people who don't do much research.

----------------

What about this one?

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-630790.htm

I've been talking to some folks at Whiteflash (we went with another of their stones) and was told this is eye-clean.

Just another suggestion
1.gif
,

Melissa
 
----------------
On 4/19/2004 3:12:48 PM rothko wrote:

It seems that people don't tend to cut SI1-SI2 stones as well as stones with [fewer] INCLUSSIONS. I guess it must be that to the lay person clarity and color are more important than cut and most diamonds are bought by people who don't do much research.

----------------


Hm.... I would doubt. You might want to take a look at those and see. Some I1s at SC are really top notch (there was one posted here yesterday). And elsewhere same comment applies. it does pay to put a great cut on some not-so-expensive material - quite a few brabded cuts go for th esame logic - for what it is worth.

Besides... how about this one?

There seem to be a couple of stones listed byt the GOG H&A search engine, and those could also come with all reports in palce if you so wish.
 


----------------
On 4/19/2004 3:05:12 PM Stephan wrote:







----------------
On 4/2/2004 10:52:37 AM Rhino wrote:





A little PS ... I LOVE the particular angles that Paul chose to cut this stone too as well. 34.3/40.7 is one of my favs.
1.gif

----------------


The last one, from Whiteflash, isn't ideal for me (34.9-40.9).
----------------

Stephan, you must have some incredibly tight criteria if 34.9/40.9 doesn't ring Ideal.



In looking at the Idealscope, I can't find a THING wrong with that stone, and I'd take it in a NY minute.





 


----------------
On 4/19/2004 3:26:08 PM melsc1 wrote:







http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-630790.htm

I've been talking to some folks at Whiteflash (we went with another of their stones) and was told this is eye-clean.

Just another suggestion
1.gif
,

Melissa
----------------

WOW - that stone Melissa listed is GORGEOUS - an even better find than the 1.32 J. The cut proportions are TO DIE FOR with the 40.7 pavilion angle. Sweet find!



And Val.......read the posts above......I listed that 1.32 J, VS about six posts ago! Wake up, gal!
2.gif

 
----------------
On 4/2/2004 10:52:37 AM Rhino wrote:



A little PS ... I LOVE the particular angles that Paul chose to cut this stone too as well. 34.3/40.7 is one of my favs.
1.gif

----------------

The last one, from Whiteflash, isn't ideal for me (34.9-40.9).
----------------

Stephan, you must have some incredibly tight criteria if 34.9/40.9 doesn't ring Ideal.


In looking at the Idealscope, I can't find a THING wrong with that stone, and I'd take it in a NY minute.



[/quote]----------------[/quote]



Thanks for all the helpful information guys! I hope this thread will be useful to others who are in a similar boat.

I think these sorts of debate summarize why its so hard to buy the 'ideal' diamond. Everyone I've talked to thinks a particular set of angles are 'ideal'.

The problem is, there's no great way for me to correlate 'ideal cut' with visual quality except through things like the BScope. There are certain metrics to follow (AGL0, HCA<2, etc), but when looking to maximize brilliance, you can only really tell by looking at the stone under a bunch of differnt lightings. Since I don't have that luxury, BScope, IdealScope, etc are what I'm going to rely on (except for the 1 or 2 diamonds I will send to get appraised).
 
Roth, I think you're making this harder than it has to be.




ALL of these diamonds are likely to perform AMAZINGLY. Any MINUTE differences in the light return will likely be undiscernable to the eye. You have to keep in mind, you're comparing diamonds that are sooooooooooo close to one another. This is like comparing two cookies.....only one has 3 more grains of sugar in it than the other. Yes, the one with 3 grains more TECHNICALLY has a bit more, but you'll NEVER taste the difference!




I honestly believe that the K diamond is going to show the color, despite the fluorescence. The fluorescence will NOT be enough to make this diamond face up as the I, SI2 or the J diamonds will.




Good luck, whatever you decide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top