Diamond Help

[Stoney Road]

What a great resource, glad to have found this.   Hoping some here can give their opinions and what not, help me out a bit.

In kind of a conundrum here, am looking for a pair of matched smaller well cut round diamonds for a necklace for my wife (we just had our firstborn, and getting as a gift - April''s birthstone is diamond!)  Having a hard time finding good stones locally at a reasonable price, so thinking about trying online.

I actually bought my wife''s engagement solitaire through DCI, which probably was a mistake, but I did receive an absolutely beautiful diamond that everyone compliments on.  After looking around more, appears I probably overpaid about $1000 for a .92 carat diamond, but what is done is done and my wife adores the diamond.  This time however, I am trying to be a bit more careful in what I pay, but I still want a set of diamonds that is as beautiful as the one she has for her engagement ring.

These are the sets of stones which I am currently looking at, all are H&A and score less than 2 on the HCA -

Set 1 -  .461, G, VS2, 4.94 -4.96 x 3.04, Depth 61.4%, Table 57%, Girdle 1.8 – 2.2, Culet Pt, Crown Angle 34.1, Pavilion 40.8,  Polish/Symmetry Ideal/Ideal, non fluorescent

            .462, G, VS2, 4.93-4.96 x3.08, Depth 62.2%, Table 57%, Girdle 1.4 - 2.0, Culet Pt, Crown Angel 34.3, Pavilion angle 40.9, Polish/Symmetry Ideal/Ideal, non fluorescent


Set 2 - .467, H, VS2, 4.97 – 4.99 x 3.07 mm, Depth 61.5%, Table 57%, Girdle 1.2 – 1.6, culet pt, Crown Angle 34.0, Pavilion angle 41.0, Polish/Symmetry  Ideal/Ideal, non fluorescent

           .477, H, VS2, 5.00 – 5.04 x3.09, Depth 61.4%, Table 57%, Girdle 1.0 – 1.6, Culet Pt, Crown Angle 34.1, Pavilion angle 41, Polish/Symmetry Ideal/Ideal, non fluorescent


Set 3 -  .434, G, SI1, 4.85 – 4.87 x 3, Depth 61.7%, Table 56%, Girdle .8 – 1.4, Culet Pt, Crown angle 34.5, Pavilion 40.8, Polish/Symmetry Ideal/Ideal, non fluorescent - $1011
          
            .427, G, Si1, 4.81 - 4.85 x 2.98, Depth 61.6%, Table 57%, Girdle 1.0 - 1.9, Culet Pt, Crown angel 34.5, Pavilion 40.8,  Polish/Symmetry Ideal/Ideal, non fluorescent

Now, of course, DCI will say these are all ''off-makes'' since the total depth of each exceeds 61, and then try to sell me their own diamonds at a mark up, but I am wondering what some less biased people have to say about these sets?

Thanks in advance

 

[oldminer]

Run Garry Holloway''s HCA or utilize the AGA Cut Class Do it yourself cut grader and see what results. I think you will find all three pairs are pretty nice. You know now how to shop better than before and you won''t go wrong. It isn''t all that difficult, but the first few steps seem complex.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/20/2005 2:48:50 PM
Author:Stoney Road

I am wondering what some less biased people have to say about these sets?

Well... I can''t say depth below 61% is not ok, it just that this doesn''t count much and the treshold just happens to be less than the current branded Ideal cuts (AGS0 and others you might consider) allow. If it would not be so... DCI could not make a difference for themselves

You could argue that the HCA evaluation is no different: some sort of standard that helps some diamond appear better than the rest.

It just so happens that DCI is the unique promotor of their standards, and the method behind the HCA (to select ballanced combinations of crown and pavilion angles) is also used by major labs (AGS, EGL, HRD...). Or at least it used to - now both AGS and GIA are preparing to launch an even more sophisticated cut grading system.

So... I''d go for the HCA''s "opinion" and take a look at the stones if pictures are available (pictures show symmetry, the HCA does not). This, since you seem to be looking for a fine cut. It is really up to you do decide what matters. The HCA yields a "guess" of brilliance: a pretty good, educated guess IMO, but if only the finest cut will do, some account of optical symmetry needs to be there. And that means pictures - perhaps specialized ones, like the H&A viewer or the IdealScope provide (btw. the HCA and the IdealScope are supposed to work together).

Hope some of this malkes a bit of sense.

For those SI1, I would like to see the clarity plot and consider whether these stones are "eye clean" or not - meaning, if they do or do nt show detracting inclusions. Most Si would not.... but, what do I know ? Each stone is different. This is not enough reason to forego SI1 altogether, I think. The grade makes a great price point.

Just my 0.2

 

[valeria101]

Btw, looking to match the size of those (4.8-4.9mm) a couple of D-F/SI below 1k turned up.

D-Si1 ; 4.8mm ; $1000

F-Si1; 4.8mm; $900

Both get the HCA nod, and the F is a branded Harts and Arrows cut as well ("A Cut Above").

Honestly, I might look at H-J-Si1 for a pendant: there is no chance of any color to show there and the stone will never be under scrutiny from the side (if the pendant ever gets such improbable close observation).

Two stones turned up over a quick search:

H-Si1; 5.2mm; $1170

J-Si1; 5.2mm; $998


There isn't allot of size difference between these, but it would be visible, I think. If this is a concern at all.

Taking into account about $200 for setting this stone into a solitaire pendant (if this is what you have in mind) I would have a hard time deciding between the D and J

Just my 0.2, of course...

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 4/20/2005 7:28:14 PM
Author: valeria101

So... I'd go for the HCA's 'opinion' and take a look at the stones if pictures are available (pictures show symmetry, the HCA does not). This, since you seem to be looking for a fine cut. It is really up to you do decide what matters. The HCA yields a 'guess' of brilliance: a pretty good, educated guess IMO, but if only the finest cut will do, some account of optical symmetry needs to be there. And that means pictures - perhaps specialized ones, like the H&A viewer or the IdealScope provide (btw. the HCA and the IdealScope are supposed to work together).


For those SI1, I would like to see the clarity plot and consider whether these stones are 'eye clean' or not - meaning, if they do or do nt show detracting inclusions. Most Si would not.... but, what do I know ? Each stone is different. This is not enough reason to forego SI1 altogether, I think. The grade makes a great price point.

I agree with what Ana has said here...not sure, though, if it was overlooked that you've already run your own matches though the HCA, and found them all favorable. Except for double checking (with something like an idealscope), you've principally done the work, I think. You only list one price that I can see...so apart from trying to optimize on value, which you don't give info really to check comparatively...again as Ana says, whether G or H, VS2 or SI1...a rationale is easy to support either, though that choice won't address cut, in any case. Personally, otherwise, I'm an HCA fan, and so, as I say, I think you've done the work that's mostly sufficient.

Best

 

[Dancing Fire]

Stoney

just going by the #''s ,i''ll take set #3 ,for me it''s a no brainer.

 

[aljdewey]

My overwhelming choice here would be set #3.......the crown/pav angles on those stones look incredible, and I''ve found those combinations really hit the sweet spot.

 

[Stoney Road]

Thanks everyone for your suggestions, went ahead and got the clarity plots on matched set #3, and one of the stones seems to have inclusions in the table, and the other has two feathers that appear to go to the girdle.

Pictures are apparently following, so can see how the table inclusions look, but wondering about the feathers to the girdle, is this a major durability concern?

Price for set #3 is about $2700, set #2 $2500 and set #3 about $2k

 

[Regular Guy]

Although it''s a little unclear about pricing from your last post...

Date: 4/21/2005 12:39:59 PM
Author: Stoney Road

Price for set #3 is about $2700, set #2 $2500 and set #3 about $2k

I''m thinking you meant that set #1 is $2700, and set 3 is $2K. I re-did the HCA numbers, and although it''s questionable that the subtleties should be read so closely, set 3 also had the most "excellents" in the HCA result, and so, for both price and value, it would be my first choice, too.

I can''t help you on the other questions you have...

...on matched set #3, and one of the stones seems to have inclusions in the table, and the other has two feathers that appear to go to the girdle.

Pictures are apparently following, so can see how the table inclusions look, but wondering about the feathers to the girdle, is this a major durability concern?

but if others can''t address these, perhaps it would be worth engaging a professional to see them. If not set #3, I''d go with #1, with -- at VS2 -- questions about inclusions tend to go away, if you still have them.

Best,