Desperately seeking the perfect Heart!

[luvn2oxfrd]

Help!

My fiance and I are desperately seeking the perfect heart shaped diamond. A feat that is proving to be much more difficult than we had thought.

Larger heart shaped stones are just not in the stores and we have had 2 different jewelers bring in 5 stones, none of which matched our criteria. Are we asking too much, or is there no such thing as a perfect heart?

Of the 5 stones we have seen, this is the criteria we have pieced together. If we are off base with any of the numbers, please let me know!

Carat: 2.0 - 2.5
Color: F - H
Clarity: VS1 - VS2
Table: 52 - 60%
Depth: 52 - 60%
Length to Width Ratio: .95 - 1.1 (we prefer the elongated heart)

Is it out there? Is it a matter of waiting until the right stone comes along...or will be waiting forever?

Any advice or comments are welcome. We are getting quite frustrated in our search.

 

[moremoremore]

I know SQUAT about hearts...but here are a few that came up as "ideal" cuts...

http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=2016010

http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=2502635

http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=2501923

 

[valeria101]

Well... those numbers may be a bit strict (and 52 very low both for table and depth, as far as I woudl judge), but with no way to rely on these dimensions to determine how the stone will look like, it may be a good idea to inquire online as well. I suspect you will indeed have a wait a bit for a brilliant, well cut stone like this - asking it from a seller already selecting stones for brilliance would help, I suppose.

For an asimetrical shape like this, those percentages really do not say much. Just imagine what that 60% table would say and how many table outlines would give the same number! And depth down to the culet says little about how exactly is the stone cut - that is just the max depth for an otherwise intricate outline.

There are a few dozen stones matching your criteria listed here, and I would hope a seller can help select one with both pleasing shape and good brilliance among them.

Anyway, I would take a look on the guidelines at Gemappraisers and teh Ideal_scope.com for what should be expected from the light return of a fancy shape. Have you tried these?

Just my 0.2, of course.

 

[valeria101]

Oh... sure. DCD defines a set of proportions to be "ideal cut" for each shape. And they do provide soem analysis of brilliance for their rounds.. so why not for a hart shape? Same at Whiteflash... and most sellers posting here.

Actually, if you just select a few stones for their specs on teh Pricescope site itself, chances are each piece would be listed by a couple of sellers, so once you have an idea what 1-2 pieces sound promissing, you can ask one of the sellers to call in the piece for a better look. And you can always post a couple of options here for public scrutiny - the PS way

 

[moremoremore]

that's why I listed the word ideal in " "

 

[valeria101]

Hope this makes one "case in point"... obvioulsy there are three stones listed here by a couple sellers each! The table shows what AGA considers good proportions for a hart shape (the criteria for these proportions are explained both on the tutorial for Fancy Shapes here and on Gemappraisers.com). While not all details are listed (or would be present on a GIA cert) to give an AGA grade to eitehr stone, they seem good contenders (with no "number" out of line, that is).

 

[valeria101]

This is the last one, really!

I was just wandering which would be an "elongated" hart shape for you between the two below? For two altogether different reasons both would be called "narrow" by some

 

[valeria101]

Did I say 'last post' ? Hm...

Both these have about the same depth and 60% tables. They look like night and day to me, despite the look-alike depth and table! This is about how mcuh numbers can help here. And I didn't even touch the topic of brilliance - no numbers would guarantee much in that department!

 

[luvn2oxfrd]

wow! valeria101, i am impressed. the two jewelers we have seen in our area have not jumped to help as quickly as you have! thank you very much.

as for the elongation issue, we would prefer the stone on the right...the one with a negative bulge factor, i am presuming. but if finding an elongated stone is difficult, finding one with less of a bulge is impossible.

we have been warned that if we want an elongated heart, that we should drop the clarity to SI1/SI2 because an elongated heart is generally a flawed pear with a notch. we would prefer not to do this however.

 

[valeria101]

Isn't the diamond at the left in the pic close to having "negative bulge factor" ? (btw. in the wireframe pic the stone to the right has a square outline 1:1 proportions, and the one at the left comes at 1.1:1 ! Both stones pictured are between 1:1 and 1.1:1).

Sometimes I hear saying that the "notch" on a hart shape is one way to cut a large inclusion out of the stone (hence the comment of SI starts to make sense) but I woudl think any shape can be found in any clarity, given enough choice. Actually, I would definitely consider a clean SI, with no other argument involved: if one cannot see those inclusions once the stone is set... why not?

 

[luvn2oxfrd]

you are right, i do clearly see the differences in the two stones. but what to do? i understand that numbers don't tell you anything, and that you need to see the stones, but that in and of itself is very difficult. i have never seen more than 2 heart stones together at one time, and those two stones varied so greatly in the numbers that you couldn't make a good comparison.