Diamond Pros: comments on these 3 please.

[dandoboy]

I just got back from looking at 3 stones today. Before I give my opinions and comments about what they looked like in person, I''d like some professional opinion and commentary on which ones look good by the numbers, and where various concerns lie.


Diamond #1:

1.088 cts RB
6.61 - 6.65 x 4.06 mm
AGS000 Hearts and Arrows
F, VS1
Fluorescnece: negligible
Table: 56.0%
Depth %: 61.3%
Crown Angle: 34.5
Pavillion Angle: 40.9
Culet: pointed
Faceted 1.1%-3.8%


Diamond #2:

1.020 cts RB
6.45 - 6.50 x 4.01 mm
AGS000 Hearts and Arrows
E, VS1
Fluorescnece: medium blue
Table: 56.0%
Depth %: 62.1%
Crown Angle: 35.2
Pavillion Angle: 40.9
Culet: pointed
Faceted 0.9%-2.6%


Diamond #3:

1.001 cts RB
6.41 - 6.51 x 3.91 mm
AGS000 Hearts and Arrows
F, VS1
Fluorescnece: negligible
Table: 57.0%
Depth %: 60.7%
Crown Angle: 34.4
Pavillion Angle: 40.5
Culet: pointed
Faceted 1.4%-4.2%

 

[belle]

i am very curious to hear what your observations were. i like #1 and #2, but the crown and pavilion angles on #3 would have me shying away.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/7/2005 1:32:48 PM
Author:dandoboy



I just got back from looking at 3 stones today. Before I give my opinions and comments about what they looked like in person, I'd like some professional opinion and commentary on which ones look good by the numbers, and where various concerns lie.

Diamond #1:

1.088 cts RB
6.61 - 6.65 x 4.06 mm
AGS000 Hearts and Arrows
F, VS1
Fluorescnece: negligible
Table: 56.0%
Depth %: 61.3%
Crown Angle: 34.5
Pavillion Angle: 40.9
Culet: pointed
Faceted 1.1%-3.8%

The basic proportions on this one look the best to me.

Diamond #2:

1.020 cts RB
6.45 - 6.50 x 4.01 mm
AGS000 Hearts and Arrows
E, VS1
Fluorescnece: medium blue
Table: 56.0%
Depth %: 62.1%
Crown Angle: 35.2
Pavillion Angle: 40.9
Culet: pointed
Faceted 0.9%-2.6%

I'm not wild about the crown/pavilion angle combo if the sarin report or grading document is accurate.

Diamond #3:

1.001 cts RB
6.41 - 6.51 x 3.91 mm
AGS000 Hearts and Arrows
F, VS1
Fluorescnece: negligible
Table: 57.0%
Depth %: 60.7%
Crown Angle: 34.4
Pavillion Angle: 40.5
Culet: pointed
Faceted 1.4%-4.2%

A little too far out of round. Not very excited about the 40.5 either.

Do you have ideal-scope or ASET images? How about H&A photos?

 

[dandoboy]

I was going to wait a little longer for comments, but this will be my last chance to post today and I don''t want to leave you hanging.

Diamond#1
Looked the best to me right off the bat, and looked great in natural lighting too. Scored a 1.5 on the HCA, however, only scored a ''very good'' for scintilation.

Diamond #2
Looked a little dark under jewlery store lighting, but great under natural lighting. My concerns on this stone are 1) that it scored a 2.4 on the HCA rejecting it as a top-performing super-ideal, and 2) the AGS certificate is dated June 24, 2004. Why has this stone been cut and on the shelves for more than a year?

Diamond #3
Also looked great to me right off the bat. Scored a 0.5 on the HCA with excellent in every category (very good for spread). This stone is in the running with diamond #1, but when the two stones are examined side-by-side, diamond #1 spoke to me a little more.


I''ll be going back tomorrow to look at them again. We''ll see if my thoughts or opinions change by then. I''ll keep you posted.

 

[dandoboy]

Took a second look at these stones today. I''ve ruled out Diamond #2, as I''m not a fan of the medium fluorescence, the 2.4 HCA score, or the poorer visual appearance that I got from it.

We''ve narrowed it down to Diamond #1 and diamond #3.

Diamond #1 scores a 1.5 TIC on the HCA, with excellent light and fire, but only very good scint. and spread.
Diamond #2 scores a 0.5 TIC on the HCA with excellent light, fire, scint, and very good spread.
***can anyone explain or direct me to what the different ends of the 0-2 HCA score means?***

We don''t have any additional images to provide you with unfortunately. We looked at the two stones under a H&A viewer and I convinced myself that I liked what I saw for diamond #1 better than #3, but by no means was #3 poor.

Both stones sparkle like mad under any and all lighting conditions; how do we choose one stone over the other. All else aside and looking at price, the 1.088 carat diamond (#1) is about $1500 CDN more than the 1.001 carat (#3) stone.

Comments, advice, or opinions anyone?

 

[valeria101]

You know alllot more about these than the HCA can tell you. If you look up ''rejection tool'' in Garry''s posts you will probably find out that he wrote dozens of posts instructing that his HCA be used only for a rough first draw and that visual inspection is allot more informative and precise.

Just my 0.2

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/8/2005 2:41:16 PM
Author: dandoboy
Took a second look at these stones today. I've ruled out Diamond #2, as I'm not a fan of the medium fluorescence, the 2.4 HCA score, or the poorer visual appearance that I got from it.

We've narrowed it down to Diamond #1 and diamond #3.

Diamond #1 scores a 1.5 TIC on the HCA, with excellent light and fire, but only very good scint. and spread.
Diamond #2 scores a 0.5 TIC on the HCA with excellent light, fire, scint, and very good spread.
***can anyone explain or direct me to what the different ends of the 0-2 HCA score means?***

We don't have any additional images to provide you with unfortunately. We looked at the two stones under a H&A viewer and I convinced myself that I liked what I saw for diamond #1 better than #3, but by no means was #3 poor.

Both stones sparkle like mad under any and all lighting conditions; how do we choose one stone over the other. All else aside and looking at price, the 1.088 carat diamond (#1) is about $1500 CDN more than the 1.001 carat (#3) stone.

Comments, advice, or opinions anyone?

All numbers, HCAs, sims, scopes and tea leaves pale compared to what your eyes tell you, judging between two great diamonds. If the better H&A patterning and slightly better 'on paper' mm measurements of diamond #1 are worth the extra to you, go for it. If not, it sounds like you will not go wrong with #3: You have seen both in different lighting conditions and obviously like them. You're in a good position.