Diamond Opinion

[BFKT94]

Which should I choose?

AGS cert. F/VS2/1.011 ct
Cut Grade 0 Ideal (Triple 0)
6.50-6.53 mm x 3.90 mm
Table 57%
Depth 59.8%
Crown angle 34.0 degrees
Pavilion angle 40.4 degrees
pointed culet
no inclusions under the table
girdle faceted 0.9-1.7%
No fluorescence
$7635

or

GIA cert. F/VS2/1.07 ct
6.64-6.69 mm x 4.02 mm
table 58%
depth 60.3%
sym./po. VG/Exc
girdle thin to s. thick
No fluorescence
$7319

Is the difference in cut quality worth $700 per carat difference?

 

[pricescope]

BFKT94, tough question. unfortunately without crown and pavilion angles it is difficult to say much about cut of the second stone. Although there is a good chance it is a well cut stone as well.

However, personally, I'm always in favor for biggest and cheapest one

 

[Rhino]

Interesting first stone. 40.4 pavilion angle with that crown causes a .2 on the HCA (one of the lowest scoring stones I've seen on that), HOWEVER on such low scoring stones one primary feature I've witnessed no most all of them is that they will be very fiery stones but the minor facets can and will affect the look of these in the areas of white light return and scintillation. It's my day off so I'm playing around a bit today and trumped up a few of MANY possible combinations using the data you've given and possible LightScope images. The differences you'll see in these images are the result of varying the minor facets and can change the look of that stone dramatically. One feature that they all have in common however is each variation I've tried scores very well on the "Cut Quality" feature within the program. This is NOT an appraisal of your stone and it may not be ANYTHING like the LightScope images I'm posting. The best advice I would offer is if you'd like to confirm anything about it to have a pro examine it.

There are way too many variables missing on the 2nd stone to even attempt to give the slightest educated opinion about.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

#2

 

[Rhino]

Within the software I've used simulated FireScope images as opposed to IdealScope images as they most accurately reflect what I observe when I am testing diamonds. I have a little trick I do within the software to show me the greater detail that I see in my LightScope so I think it's more of a simulated LightScope image. If Gary or any of you guys would like to see the difference in the simulated images I generate and how I get a virtual duplicate of LightScope images email me and I'll show you before and after pics.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[BFKT94]

Thanks for the simulations, can you tell me a little about what those images should demonstrate to me?

Thanks for the help!!!

 

[Rhino]

Sure. You can read my tutorial on how to interpret the images at this link.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/the_idealscope_firescope_tm.htm

If you have any questions feel free to ask here or drop me an email.

Kind regards,
Rhino

 

[diamondsman]

Hi
I think that your first stone is a bit on the flat side as it has a 57% depth.
in my opinion you should look for these measurements:
depth :59-61
table:53-60
these will give you the most brillancy with out being too shallow, or too deep.
if you need more advice you can e-mail me @ [email protected]

best of luck

 

[BFKT94]

The depth is 59.8%, the TABLE is 57% on the first stone.

I think I am leaning towards the AGS stone even though it's a bit more. I have visited both places and they are both reputable establishments, but I haven't seen these stones and won't have time to do so before Christmas. With that in mind, I think the AGS certificate gives me the least risk between the two stones as far as cut quality.

Anyone disagree with this logic?

Would it help if Itold you the two different importers I am looking at? They are both in the Washington, D.C. area.

 

[pricescope]

Diamondsman,
----------------
I think that your first stone is a bit on the flat side as it has a 57% depth.
----------------
Positive thing about this stone though is that it has better spread and might have better fire
----------------
in my opinion you should look for these measurements:
depth :59-61
table:53-60
these will give you the most brilliancy with out being too shallow, or too deep.----------------
Would you agree the spread is also very important factor for consumers and table and depth alone don't guarantee ideal cut?

 

[BFKT94]

Any final words of wisdom or input?

 

[diamondsman]

Hi
No I dont agree with a 57% depthbeing more spready in most cases it would make the stone shallower, if you want a bit spready than the table should be a bit bigger.
even though these days the ideal measurements in diamond industry are those with the smaller tables and depths that are ranging approx. between 59-62.
these are the ones we wholsalesrs consider withing the ideal make(years ago we liked the bigger tables but it changed(

good luck.
diamondsman

 

[pricescope]

----------------
No I dont agree with a 57% depthbeing more spready in most cases it would make the stone shallower, if you want a bit spready than the table should be a bit bigger.
even though these days the ideal measurements in diamond industry are those with the smaller tables and depths that are ranging approx. between 59-62.
----------------

The stone may have 57% table but shallow crown and pavilion and thus be speady. Like this one.

 

[diamondsman]

Sorry, you are right it has a 57% table ,I thought it was the depth!I am just used to the g.i.a cert showing the depth first.My appologies,In that case i would strongly reccomend the first stone it is the better stone as far as cut is concerned!
sorry

good luck

 

[RockDoc]

Relying on the numbers.........

While numbers are a great way to sort through a potential purchase selection, they are not 100% predictable as to how the stone will actually look or perform.

In a round the numbers are only 70% reliable and in a fancy shape about 30%


Just had two stones here in the lab. One had really good numbers, the other not so good. The not so good stone far out performed the other.

In addition, the internal symmetry of the better stone, was far better than the other.

But..... the stone with the "poorer" numbers was a much better performing stone. This analysis was also supported by the B Scope, which gave the better proportioned stone med to high results, while the poorer cut stone scored Very high in all three of the categories it analyzes.

Leonid..... I do have to question the image you posted. I have never seen any diamond that has that image in the firescope.

Rockdoc

 

[pricescope]

Rockdoc,----------------
the stone with the "poorer" numbers was a much better performing stone.
----------------
What is the definition of “better” or “poorer” performing stones? Is it your subjective opinion or it is based on Bscope results?

If it is based on Bscope results could it be possible that stone with higher Bscope readings can appear to be less pleasing than another one with lower Bscope "performance"?----------------
Leonid..... I do have to question the image you posted. I have never seen any diamond that has that image in the Firescope.
----------------
You can address this question to Sergey. This picture was calculated for certain proportions. All the tests for accurate 3D Sarin models of the real stones show great resemblance of the real Firescope images with calculated ones.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Jonathon I would like to know the adustments you do to acheive your LS DC images.
I have asked before if you would please email me the aperature and focal distances too.