diamond experts: 3 choices of 2c stones, need help deciding...

[jin866]

Need opinions on the following three 2c diamonds, size, clarify, color comparable, what I need to decide are based on cut and other details:

a)
table 57.2%
deepth 60.9%
crown angle 33.8 (33.4-34.4)Is this range too big?
pavillion angle 41.1 (40.9-41.2)
culet 0.5%
girdle 1.4%
ex, ex, no-fluor
HCA 2.0

b)
table 55.2 (54.8-55.7)
deepth 60.9
crown angle 34.5 (34.1-34.7)
pavillion ange 40.8 (40.5-41.2)
culet 0.1%
girdle 1.4% (0.8-1.
ex ex no-fluor
HCA 1.2
commnet: surface graining not shown

c)
table 56%
deepth 61.2%
crown angle 34.1
pavillion angle 40.9
girdle 1.0%-2.7% Is this range too big?
culet very small
ex ex no
HCA 1.2

Questions:

1. I like a) but a little concerned about the cut. Is the range of crown ange too wide?
2. Is there an actual visual different between HCA 2.0 and HCA 1.2?
3. Is the larger table more desirable for 2c stone? (so I should chose sth like 56, 57 rather than 55?)
4. Is the surface graining a concern for the stone b) considering it is a VVS2 stone

I am a picky person. I found tht the more I read, the harder to chose a diamond

This is crazy. Anyway, really want to get this search done and have a ring on my finger

Another question is regarding the setting. I really like the 6-prone knife-edge Tiff&Co setting. Does WF and Superbcert have exactly the same replica? Comparing the pictures on both sites, the one from Superbcert seems to be more close to the real thing. The one from WF seems to have a fatter upside-down-Y prone? I am thinking about order the diamond from WF and have the ring from Superbcert, anyone has done that?

Thanks ver much for any input.

 

[aljdewey]

Personally, #1 and #3 don't especially speak to me; #2 is beautiful and would be my pick.

#1 - I don't really care for the 41.1 pavilion - possible light leakage

#3 - I'm not wild personally either about the variance in the girdle.

#2 - To ME, gorgeous proportions and looks to have great potential.

 

[Mara]

#2 all the way. the thing sounds spot on in everything i''d choose as well.

for #1 don''t like table and depth combo along with the angles, esp the high 41.1 pav
for #3 it''s a close runner up and i''d choose this one second but #2 trumps it in depth preference and pav angle

girdle range on #2 is fine and the surface graining on a VVS isn''t a problem.

there is a huge difference between 2 and 1.2 on the HCA....but it doesn''t mean the HCA 2 means a bad stone, it just will look different. #1''s combo of numbers are not impressive to me and that pav angle at 41.1 is a big no no.

PLEASE post pictures when you make the final purchase!

 

[jin866]

Aljdewey & Mara:

Thanks so much for the reply. Wow, it is just so easy for you girls. I somehow heard that for larger stone, a larger table is more desirable. The mid-50s like 55% won''t looks good on a larger stone, true?

I know the AGS0 cut range, also know crown ange 34.5 and pavillion angle 40.75 is the ideal, but don''t have much sense about the # combinations except using HCA as a reference. I wonder whether you could share what are the good ## combinations for a superb ideal stone?

Sure, I will post once I got my shopping done

Thanks,
Nana

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 5/26/2005 8:18:55 PM
Author: nana
Aljdewey & Mara:

Thanks so much for the reply. Wow, it is just so easy for you girls.

hehehe- if you stick around here for 2.5 years, trust me, it will be that easy for you too! LOL

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 5/26/2005 8:18:55 PM
Author: nana
Aljdewey & Mara:

I somehow heard that for larger stone, a larger table is more desirable. The mid-50s like 55% won't looks good on a larger stone, true?

To me, no, not true.

On stones that aren't well-cut, they lack in liveliness/performance around the edges so the stone doesn't look as big as it is. Larger tables help mask those shortcomings by providing bolder flashes from a big table surface.

On well-cut stones, the cut means the entire diameter of the stones is lively with great performance, so the stones looks every bit as big as it is. So....well-cut stones don't have to rely on a larger table to make up for their shortcomings in performance/visual presence.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/26/2005 8:18:55 PM
Author: nana

I know the AGS0 cut range, also know crown ange 34.5 and pavillion angle 40.75 is the ideal, but don''t have much sense about the # combinations except using HCA as a reference. I wonder whether you could share what are the good ## combinations for a superb ideal stone?

Sure, I will post once I got my shopping done

Thanks,
Nana

Nana

here is my super ideal cut specs.some will disagree.

table 55-56%,
total depth 60.7-61%
crown angle 34.2-34.5
pavil angle 40.7-40.8
pavil depth 42.8-43%
girdle thin-med faceted,
gia ex/ex or ags id/id H&A.
HCA score 1.0-1.5
AGA 1A cut
with all the measurements in a very tight range not more than .2'' and .2% variance.

 

[Kaleigh]

b) #2 is by far the best out of the three. I like everything about it. Should be an awesome stone. This one stands out as far as depth, table, crown and pavilion angles. Looks like a winner to me IMHO.

 

[jin866]

Thanks everyone for the input. Now let me give more detail about stone b)

I was mostly concerned about its clarity issue. Unlike the other two with pinpoint plotted, it''s unclear where is the inclusion on the plot. Under the plot, it has key to symbols: Needle, pinpoint. It also has comments: Surface graining is not shown. I searched some previous posts on "surface graining" and seems to have the impression that it might be a problem or might not be.
On the sarin.pdf file, there is a plot called "crown & pavillion graph" with data like Table 0.3%, culet 1.0% offcenter. What are these? Some offcenter plot? Is it sth I need to worry about?
Once these two issues clarified, then b) is definitely the winner.

Thanks,
Nana

 

[hoorray]

I would call the vendors of #2 and ask to discuss the stone in detail with someone knowledgable while they are looking at it. Ask for details on the inclusions -- where they are, what type, what color, do any break the surface, and what is the "grade maker" inclusion and it''s details especially. Ask for magnified pictures, and then when you get them, remember they are usually VERY magnified, so don''t be scared off by them. Ask exactly how eye clean the stone is -- from what angles, distances, lighting, etc. Eye clean means different things to different people.

#2 has great cut specs, so I would work to get comfortable everything else. If that doesn''t work, then move to #3 to try to do the same.

Good luck!