Cut it out

[sleeprequired]

Hi all,

first time poster here. I've been reading here and found it to be a wealth of knowledge and i'm zeroing in on what i'm after in a loose stone for my GF.

My parameters are colourless to the naked eye, no visible inclusions to the naked eye (i have excellent eyesight and one carat and most important of all, THE BEST POSSIBLE CUT I CAN FIND. My girlfriend really liked the hearts on fire brand so after much research i've narrowed the dealers down to whiteflash and brian gavin.

I have two diamonds i am looking at, can i please get some opinions on which stone is better and also, WILL I BE ABLE TO FIND A BETTER CUT within a month or two?

I am leaning towards diamond 2 because the inclusions are smaller althought the ASET image is not as good at the base of the arrows however it seems better with the little triangle areas near the base of the arrows than diamond 2.

1.008 diamond number 1





diamond 1.003 number 2

 

[Gypsy]

First: You need to post the Idealscope images. Better yet, just put both diamonds on hold then post the links. The ASETS you posted aren't as helpful as an idealscope as they ASETs from the certificates which aren't of the actual stones, they are computer simulates from the certificate. And, more importantly, idealscope images are generally the most helpful with rounds. Second, if you are in the Signature lines of both you don't need to post the hearts images really. A) you'll never see the hearts when the diamond is set B) it's just patterning, not light return and C) neither company would qualify a diamond in their signature line that wasn't a true hearts and arrow stone.

Infinity is the only cutting house that I know that can compete with the brands you are looking at. High Performance Diamonds is their retailer.

 

[sleeprequired]

thanks for your help...

here are the idealscope & aset tests. The 1.003 diamond looks more like the ideal pattern but the 1.008 arrows are more precise i think. The 1.008 seems to be missing the tiny triangles near the base of the arrows

1.008


1.003 diamond

 

[Gypsy]

I'm going to leave it to people who are much more persnickety than I am with round brilliants to comment on those stones further(I suspect though that ultimately folks are gonna say go with the cheaper one or the vendor with the setting you prefer but I could be, and have been, wrong).

I suspect though that they will be more interested in the angles and what they mean in terms of the balance between colored light and white light than the minute image differences.

Here's why.

Yes the one stone does have the tiny triangles showing up as light obstructed versus light reflected and that is a difference in the visual appearance of the stones. And on the other the triangles are reflecting that light and the pattern is therefore slightly different at the center of the stone because the tiny triangles are blending with the facets around them. But if you look here at the idealscope of an ACTUAL Hearts on Fire stone you'll see that on this Hearts on Fire, those tiny triangles are missing: http://www.jogiadiamonds.com.au/blog/hearts-on-fire-ags-polish-grading-gia-clumsiness/ . I'm sure there are Hearts on Fire stones that have those triangles present in the idealscope too. WHY? It's a minute difference AND preference thing in terms of which appeals to you more visually NOT a objective thing as to which is 'best'. They are slightly different flavors of the same things. Both apples but one is a fugi and the other a gala.

In terms of eye visible differences: you aren't talking a whole lot. Those are greatly magnified images of a stone that is 6.5mm in diameter. So I really love that you are being so conscientious, and you should with such a big special purchase, but I also don't want you to drive yourself to a headache staring at giant images of tiny things. If the stone is 6.5mm those triangles are tiny. And even with Hearts on Fire, and I just checked Infinity too, and I know from looking at BGD and WF stones for years... some will have those triangles and others don't.

So... bottom line. The triangles aren't gonna make or break you and EITHER way you are getting a GORGEOUS stone and you are doing a great job.

For the record I prefer the 1.008 because I think I see what could be just an image set up difference between vendors but might be a tiny bit of leakage in the other stone, so why risk it?

 

[sleeprequired]

well i like fuji apples... so that should make it obvious then. thanks for pointing out the hearts on fire ideal scope image. i checked their website and couldn't find any images.

i thought the ASET of the 1/003 has less green area and seems a bit more like the ideal ASET image however the 1.008 one is definitely closer to that hearts on fire...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You are overanalyzing. A WhiteFlash ACA and a Brian Gavin Signature will be equal in cut quality and certainly to your eyes. It does no good to try to overanalyze hugely magnified ASET or Idealscope images. Both are equal to or better than Hearts on Fire. And there is NO leakage in either stone! Choose the one that is cheaper when the specs are the same, or if one has the setting you want and the other doesn't, then choose that one!

(Although I will say that I would want to buy the cleaner of the 2 VS2's if there was a difference in placement or type of inclusions. Ask both vendors if the stones are eyeclean within 6 inches from the top and the sides.)

 

[Dreamer_D]

I am a cut nut. My preference is for number 1 because it has a smaller table, which is why it has no black around the base of the arrows and also the central table reflection is smaller. I like that type of patterning, personally. You are unlikely to be able to see that difference in person. But as a mind clean thing, that is my preference.

Flip a coin though. And check out Crafted by Infinity if you want another Rolly Royce of diamond cut.

 

[sleeprequired]

The lady helping me at whiteflash seems to think the first stone is the go due to the 55 table. I must admit, I've done a lot of research but not a lot of actual looking. Can you explain why you think it will be a better diamond? I guess if you're a cut nut then that's a good thing because that's my goal.

On the hearts image this are inclusions showing up. Does that mean they're less likely to show up when mounted because they are close to the 'bottom'?

 

[tyty333]

You are almost down into the flip a coin area. But if you are looking for something (besides cost/setting) to differentiate the
two, my choice would be with the smaller table also(I think that is diamond one).

 

[sleeprequired]

S what does the smaller table mean to the eye generally?

 

[Dreamer_D]

The lady helping me at whiteflash seems to think the first stone is the go due to the 55 table. I must admit, I've done a lot of research but not a lot of actual looking. Can you explain why you think it will be a better diamond? I guess if you're a cut nut then that's a good thing because that's my goal.

On the hearts image this are inclusions showing up. Does that mean they're less likely to show up when mounted because they are close to the 'bottom'?

With VS2 stones I do not pesonally concern myself with inclusion location and nature, if you don't loupe the stone it is unlikely you will see them.

It is not a case of the stone being better, just a case of different flavours. I only have a preference because I have owned like 20 diamonds over the years (I trade them or resell mostly, I like change) and have developed my own personal preferences. But it is only that, a preference, and not really a "good" "bad" distinction. Your preference could be different. For me, I prefer patterning where the arrow bases are closer together, as with the first diamond, rather than further apart, as with the second, and that is partly a function of table size. But that is sort of a mind-clean thing, and because I like taking macro photos of my diamonds. In real life I bet you $10 you could not tell the two diamonds apart

The best way to pick if you are really keen on this process is to see both diamonds in person and let your eyes decide. If you can swing buying both and returning the one you don't keep, and sending back the keeper for a mount, that is a really fun and useful excercise. You have taken it as far as you can with images and scans IMO. Only your eyes can pick between them at this point, or some non-diamond factor, like vendor preference or available settings. Seeing them would cost you shipping both ways x 2. But that's about as much money as many people spend going out to dinner, and comparing two diamonds is way more fun!

 

[Dreamer_D]

S what does the smaller table mean to the eye generally?

These two diamonds both have small tables, but the smaller table of 55% on the first one results in a tighter central region, smaller table reflection (that is the circle in the very middle) and less contrast under the table. Perhaps greater fire, but that is too general and not really something you could distingguish between these two stones. It is more a patterning thing than a performance thing. Flavour, as I said.

 

[ddiamond]

Having just dealt with both Whiteflash and Brian Gavin for the purchase of a Round Brilliant ACA/Hearts and Arrows cut I'd give the nod to Brian Gavin. In my experience, the customer service is better and more personal with BGD.

As far as the stones, I think you are in the hair splitting realm here so the differences are imperceptible.

One bit for you to consider: if you step down from focusing on exactly 1 carat or larger, you may be able to get a similar cut quality, better color/clarity stone and a huge price break. Something to weigh.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I have had a VS2 stone where the inclusion could be seen from the side, so if you care about that, you need to ask regarding both stones. You will find hundreds of positive recommendations from both vendors, and they are both top notch (and you'll find people here who are loyal to and favor one or the other). I wasn't even able to tell which was from which vendor until you said something about #1 and WF.

 

[sleeprequired]

ok thanks guys i'll make sure to ask about being eye clean from any distance, definitely important for me because i think it would bother me and i have better than 20/20 vision so.....

Now that you've mentioned Brian Gavin, i have a couple of diamond examples... can i please get some comments vs the whiteflash ones. Certainly on the certificates the aset image looks cleaner and also i think the idealscopes look sharper on whiteflash but not sure if that's due to image quality vs anything else

here is the frontrunner from whiteflash so far

diamond 1 - http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2762647.htm
diamond 3 - http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.061-f-vs2-round-diamond-ags-104047809042#!prettyPhoto[gallery2]/1/
diamond 4 - http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.038-f-vs2-round-diamond-ags-104049676007

 

[Dancing Fire]

i'd prefer the 1.06ct BGD stone...bigger in diameter,smaller table and the least expensive.OOps,just notice that the 1.03ct is $200 cheaper but i'll still pick the 1.06ct.

 

[Gypsy]

i'd prefer the 1.06ct BGD stone...bigger in diameter,smaller table and the least expensive.OOps,just notice that the 1.03ct is $200 cheaper but i'll still pick the 1.06ct.

Me too. I like that one. http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.061-f-vs2-round-diamond-ags-104047809042#!prettyPhoto[gallery2]/1/

 

[sleeprequired]

ok so i've been looking at dimesions etc for so long... why does a smaller table help and what are the real life differences?

i'm close to buying this diamond...

what do people think about the 1.008 vs 1.06? i'm having difficulty reconciling the ASET image on the certificates... which may be silly but there you go.. i'm after the perfect image..

basically i'm chasing why you prefer that one...so i can learn a bit more

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You need to let those ASET images go. That is a computer generated ASET image and NOT a photo of the stone through an ASET scope! Concentrate on the idealscope images which are magnified images of the actual stone!!! All of these stones are great. You can choose the largest one or choose the cheapest one, whichever way you are inclined! The BG 1.03 is showing up as sold, so you can mark that one off!

Okay, if you want my opinion...it looks like BG has really improved their pricing, and the 1.06 is less than the 1.0 from WF, plus it is larger in diameter. So I would probably choose the 1.06 with the 6.56 mm diameter.

 

[Gypsy]

You need to let those ASET images go. That is a computer generated ASET image and NOT a photo of the stone through an ASET scope! Concentrate on the idealscope images which are magnified images of the actual stone!!! All of these stones are great.

Once more with feeling.

I prefer the 1.06 because that Idealscope image is just utterly perfect. It is bigger AND it has a smaller table and higher crown (those are preference-- remember the apples!). Gorgeous stone.

PUT IT ON HOLD NOW. Or else all this lovely thread will do is help a curious lurker find the perfect stone for himself.


Do you have a setting you prefer, now that you've got a stone? Because you DO have the stone, trust me. Isn't going to get any better than this one.

 

[sleeprequired]

OK that i understand.

so looking at the real images... what makes the BGD 1.06 IS image better and the WF 1.008? I'm just trying to learn how to identify it myself..

if you can compare the ASET (real) and hearts all the better...

also it scores a 1.8 on the HCA, and the other stones 1.0 or 1.1

thanks for your help.

 

[sleeprequired]

I am a cut nut. My preference is for number 1 because it has a smaller table, which is why it has no black around the base of the arrows and also the central table reflection is smaller. I like that type of patterning, personally. You are unlikely to be able to see that difference in person. But as a mind clean thing, that is my preference.

Flip a coin though. And check out Crafted by Infinity if you want another Rolly Royce of diamond cut.

Hi Dreamer,

Being a cut nut , which of the two do you prefer? The BGD diamond comes back on HCA as very good across the board, whereas the WF one comes back excellent and VG for spread.

What will be the differences in character between these two? because at this point if i'm reading things correctly, that's what we're down to.

diamond 1 - http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2762647.htm
diamond 3 - http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.061-f-vs2-round-diamond-ags-104047809042#!prettyPhoto

 

[Dreamer_D]

I am a cut nut. My preference is for number 1 because it has a smaller table, which is why it has no black around the base of the arrows and also the central table reflection is smaller. I like that type of patterning, personally. You are unlikely to be able to see that difference in person. But as a mind clean thing, that is my preference.

Flip a coin though. And check out Crafted by Infinity if you want another Rolly Royce of diamond cut.

Hi Dreamer,

Being a cut nut , which of the two do you prefer? The BGD diamond comes back on HCA as very good across the board, whereas the WF one comes back excellent and VG for spread.

What will be the differences in character between these two? because at this point if i'm reading things correctly, that's what we're down to.

diamond 1 - http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2762647.htm
diamond 3 - http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.061-f-vs2-round-diamond-ags-104047809042#!prettyPhoto

They are indistinguishable, basically carbon copies. But one is 0.2mm bigger and less money

 

[Dancing Fire]

the 1.06ct is a "tightly" cut stone... Crown 34.7-34.9 ...pavil 40.7-40.9

 

[Gypsy]

The BGD diamond comes back on HCA as very good across the board, whereas the WF one comes back excellent and VG for spread.

The HCA is irrelevant on AGS 0 stones. HCA is a rough rejection tool. Not a selection tool and is based ONLY on a few select stats. The AGS 0 grade is based on ALL of the stones angles and on an examination of that actual stone's performance. So in EVERY SINGLE CASE, even if the HCA says 5, on an AGS 0 stone the AGS 0 grade trumps the HCA. Idealscope images also trump the HCA.


These cars represent your two diamonds in terms of which is better cut. This is why we can't tell you which is better performance wise. The ONLY real visual difference is the diameter and .2 is a visually apparent size difference and that's why we say pick that one (and why the HCA says the spread on that one is excellent versus very good). So... two diamonds, one is visually bigger both are gorgeous. Pick one. Put it on hold. Take a deep breath and congratulate yourself on picking a gorgeous stone.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Gypsy..congrats on your new car...

 

[sleeprequired]

the 1.06ct is a "tightly" cut stone... Crown 34.7-34.9 ...pavil 40.7-40.9

so you're onto the BGD one?

They are indistinguishable, basically carbon copies. But one is 0.2mm bigger and less money

that's a good point. however WF might move and i just want the 'better' stone, however minimal. also i would really like to know how they perform differently based on the (minute differences)

--

Gypsy I know from you previous posts that you support BGD, and i can see why after having a chat with them. I just want to make sure that stone will have as much scintialation, fire, etc at the WF 1.008 one is all... So you're saying even though the HCA score is off, it could in fact have more scintillation & fire based on other measurements and actually outperform the WF one?

i'm sure they are very similar and to people on this forum no doubt it's much of a muchness, however i'll only do this once (hopefully) and i need to feel i'm getting it right.

I do apreciate everyone's help and patience

 

[Gypsy]

No. I really don't think you are getting it. Because if you got it, you wouldn't rephrase your question in the quest of an answer we can't give you.

People on this forum can dissect a round brilliant to pieces for 30 pages. I've seen it happen. You will not find a more anal, persnickety, and and cut obsessed group of people anywhere short of an AGS or GIA convention or lab.

So when we say "there is no difference". And "they are indistinguishable quantitatively" we really mean that... we aren't exaggerating, we aren't just trying to get rid of you, you aren't trying to be cunning. This has nothing to do with personal vendor preference (DS prefers WF and GOG and she's still picking the BGD stone). The ACA line is based on a very strict set of criteria for uniformity by Brian Gavin. The BGD Signature line was developed the same way, by Brian Gavin. So... not really surprising they are very similar, same guy developed both lines.

You put the two of them side by side. One will be slightly bigger. That's the only objective difference that you will see. The rest is a matter of personal preference. And as we aren't YOU we can't tell you which one you should prefer. You are you. No matter how many times or different ways you ask the question... you will get the same answer: You will get our personal subjective preferences with the statement that the two stones are equal objectively. I know you want another answer. There isn't one though.

If you really want to pick between them, order both, look at them yourself and return the one you don't want. Because that's the only way you can know what YOUR subjective preferences are and which one is best for you.

 

[sleeprequired]

No. I really don't think you are getting it. Because if you got it, you wouldn't just rephrase your question in the quest of an answer we can't give you.

People on this forum can dissect a round brilliant to pieces for 30 pages. I've seen it happen. You will not find a more anal, persnickety, and and cut obsessed group of people anywhere short of an AGS or GIA convention or lab.

So when we say THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. And THEY ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE QUANTITATIVELY we really mean that... we aren't exaggerating, we aren't just trying to get rid of you, you aren't trying to be cunning. This has nothing to do with personal vendor preference (DS prefers WF and GOG and she's still picking the BGD stone).

You put the two of them side by side. One will be slightly bigger. THAT'S THE ONLY OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCE that you will see. The rest is a matter of personal preference. And as we aren't YOU we can't tell you which one you should prefer. You are you. No matter how many times or different ways you ask the question... you will get the same answer: You will get our personal subjective preferences with the statement that the two stones are equal objectively. I know you want another answer. There isn't one though.

If you really want to pick between them, order both, look at them yourself and return the one you don't want. Because that's the ONLY way you can know what YOUR subjective preferences are and which one is best for you.

Gypsy thank you for you opinion. I don't have an issue with you supporting or preferring BGD by the way, hoping you didnt think i did. So you've said there is no difference, yet you also say the rest is a matter of personal taste.

the question i'm trying to get an answer to is, what personal tastes would make one choose one over the other? preference for light performance over scintillation or fire...

I've observed that the BGD diamonds seem to have a certain 'style' or cut profile which differs to the WF ones. I'm asking if that's true and what impact that might have on the stones and personal opinions. Not just necessarily the stones i've posted above.

If you think i'm twisting your answer then i'm sorry Gypsy but i'm just trying to learn here...

Part of my post was to ask Dancing why the preference for small table and 40.9 pavillion and what was meant by those comments.

 

[Gypsy]

I edited. Anyway, DF's answer will boil down to the fact that it's his personal preference. But he has a charming way of posting so I'm sure he will say it much better than I could.