"cut above" opinions plz

[uclaure]

I am officially out of the hunt for princessess. I have converted over to the ags triple 0, h&a, ideal round cuts

Having said that, I think I found one. It's a cut above from whitflash.

0.83 I SI1
AGS 0
Table 56
Depth 60.9
Crown Angle 34.9
Crown % 15.4
Pavilion Angle 40.9
Pavilion % 43.3
Girdle thn-med
6.11-6.14X3.73

I talked to one of the gemologist at whiteflash and he said that it faces up completely white and the it is eye clean. I think that this is a great value at 2732. What do you guys think? My only concern was how it would look mounted on a ring with small g/h vs diamonds all around the band and shank. I was assured by the gemologist that this would not be a problem, esp. since the small diamonds are not ideal cut. I am so excited!

 

[Daisy2418]

From everything I've seen (and read) that diamond is Gorgeous (notice the capital "G")!

I'm convinced that's what I want. Look through the pictures in "Show me the Ring." So much fire!!!

I'm curious myself about the I-Colored A Cut Above. Please post pics if and when you get it!

 

[verticalhorizon]

Wow... what made you change your mind?

 

[uclaure]

I basically came to the conclusion that I would rather have a well-cut (cut above), excellent performing round than a very smaller and avg looking princess. I had to compromise in color and clarity, but I think that overall it is worth it. Anyone here have a branded h&a I SI1? I want to see what mine might look like.

 

[verticalhorizon]

You are able to find a non-branded H&A that performs just as well and you can use the cost savings to get a slightly bigger rock.

 

[niceice]

If the numbers are any indication (and they are) it should be a beauty! We're assuming that the 40.3% pavilion is a reverted typo as it is most likely 43.0% which would go with the 40.9 pavilion angle for those of you who might be staring at that like it's kind of "funny"...

 

[uclaure]

sorry, it is 43.3% for the pavilion

 

[uclaure]

I found another stone that is comparable. This one is not a branded h&a but I think it still has a lot of potential. I went bigger by not getting a branded h&a like verticalhorizon recomended and this is what I found

0.96 I VS2
GIA
Table 55
Depth 61.2
Girdle med
Polish VG
Sym EX
6.37x6.41x3.91
Price 3188

Do you guys think that this one will perform as well as the first one? I'll have to wait until I talk to the vendor and see if thay can run a sarin. If this one can perform well, I will be going .13 ct higher and up in clarity for only 456 extra.

 

[viscera912]

OH NO!!!

a princess has succumbed to the round

i've kept up with those who are currently looking for princess as their threads could provide good knowledge for me, who is another potential princess. ah well, im happy that you are thrilled with WF and their cut above, good luck with the rest of your search

 

[uclaure]

Anyone have anything to say about the second stone???

 

[Magnum]

I have to agree with Mara. there is almost no way to make a meaningful comparison of the cut of the second stone to the ACA stone. At a minimum, you'd need the crown and pavilion angles to start the comparison. You were very accurate when you said that the second stone has a lot of potential. That's really all you can say about the cut of it, that it has potential. It has the potential to be an amazingly cut stone, but it also has the potential to be a terribly cut stone. There's no way to tell with just the table and depth percentages. there are an infinite number of combinations of crown and pavilion angles that can result in those specific table and depth numbers. Once you get the sarin data, you can start comparing apples to apples. Maybe not green apples to green apples, but you're getting close. The other thing to consider is that ACA stones are cut with optical symmetry in mind, and not just AVERAGE crown and pavilion angles. If you were able to obtain an idealscope picture of the second stone, than you could make a really good comparison. maybe near perfect optical symmetry is not as important as a little bigger size and a little better clarity, but that's something for you to decide. My advice, if you've narrowed it to these two stones, is to ask both vendors to send the stones to a trusted local independent appraiser so that you can look at both stones side by side, with the appraiser's help, and decide which one you like best. Good luck in your search.

 

[uclaure]

ok guys and gals...I got the sarin numbers for this .965 I vs2
AGS Ideal
Depth 60.9 0
Table 54.9 0
Crown 33.3 1
pavilion 40.8 0
cutlet very small 0.6 0
girlde med (1.6-1.0) 0

Polish VG
Sym EX
6.37x6.41x3.91

What do you think? It scored a 0.8 on the HCA. I think I realy like it

Experts and non-experts weigh in.

 

[Giangi]

It is, indeed, an interesting stone.

My only concern would be the crown angle, which is a bit shallow at 33.3'. I guess my decision between this one and the ACA would be mainly based on IdealScope images and visual observation - don't forget that WhiteFlash owns the stones... You can have an expert pull them out and compare them side by side concerning whiteness, brilliance and general look.

 

[Genafrgh]

I have an H color SI2 stone and it looks completely white to me, and totally eyeclean. I've yet to spot the inclusions noted on the cert. It does, in certain lights, get a "warm" glow, but hardly anything worth mentioning. I imagine that an I colored stone wouldn't be far off from an H to the regular consumer, especially if it's cut really well.

 

[uclaure]

Comparing these two stones, the .96 I Vs2 scored a 0.8 on the hca and the .83 I sI1 scored a 1.7. Is it a safe bet to say that the first one will perform way better given this difference of 0.9 on the cut advisor?

 

[finchuck]

No it wouldn't perform "way better." The difference between a 0.8 and 1.7 HCA score would most likely not even be noticable to an untrained eye. Every stone is different and the HCA doesn't necessarily tell you which is better. You may actually prefer the 1.7 to the 0.8.

But for only an extra $500, I suppose I'd opt for the second since it's significantly larger and presumably cleaner. Are both of these stones H&A's? The second may not be, you might want to check on that. Either way, they both sound like winners.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 5/3/2004 4:27:38 PM uclaure wrote:




Is it a safe bet to say that the first one will perform way better given this difference of 0.9 on the cut advisor?
----------------

No, it's not safe to say that. The 0.9 isn't a *better* score, just a different score. You are thinking of the scoring quantitatively with the notion that lower is better, and that's not accurate.

When a stones scores less than 2.0, it means that you've eliminated known poor performers (more than 95% of all diamonds). That's *it*....that's all it means. It doesn't mean that a 1.5 is *better* than a 1.9, or that a 0.5 is better than a 1.0.

 

[uclaure]

the second one is not a branded h&a. i was going to call the vendor to see if it would be possible to provide an idealscope image. If not, maybe I'll still go ahead and purchase this 2nd stone and view it through a hearts and arrows viewer that I think I'm going to invest in. I just feel that this one is too good to pass up on. If i don't like it, I could always return it for a full refund.

 

[finchuck]

Yeah, if they have a good return policy and a good reputation, then you've got nothing to lose. I really have no doubts that you'd find the second stone lacking. Sometimes you get to a certain point where you're just splitting hairs, it seems to happen to us meticulous PScopers.