experts: im going insane -PLEASE HELP!!

[duck]

Hi there,

Ive been checking out this forum for several months and have learned quite a bit from it!

My soon to be fiancé and I have been seriously looking at diamonds for about 4 months now, and have not found one that is perfect for us (we live in Toronto Canada).

Im a perfectionist by nature, and Ive taught myself almost everything about diamonds it seems. But I find the more I know, the less satisfied I am with the ones I see, even the ones that others think are stunning.

Too much knowledge can be a bad thing, and im afraid I may be over-looking some great stones because one parameter is off. Not to mention that ive driven my boyfriend nearly insane, and feel like im going crazy myself! It come to the point that im completely obsessed!

What I want is really simple:

I want a stone that’s both ideal on paper and breath-taking in appearance, in all types of lightening, one with superb brilliance, fire and scintillation. At the same time, I want one that has the absolute best proportions and that’s center clean.

Please review the characteristics of the following round brilliant diamonds we are considering(Ive provided all the info I have on them):

#1.GIA 1.51 D VS2 54/61 VG/VG, gridle thin to medium, no florecene, VSl culet
#2. GIA 1.51 F VS1 57/61.2 G/VG thin to medium, no floracene, small cullet
#3. Gem Scan 1.51 F VS1 57.3/61 S/P not available, crown angle 34.8, pavilion % 43 girdle 1.8 sl thick, no florecene
#4GemScan 1.51 F vvs1 56/60.7 crown angle 34.3, pavilion % 44, girlde1.5 medium, culet VS, ideal symmetry, polish unavailable, no florecene; CANADAIN DIAMOND (conflict free)

-is table of 54 to small? Will it make a 1.51 diamond look smaller? whats the ideal table to max brilliance and fire/scinitlaiton?
-is a good symmetry really very bad even if the diamond is georgeus and preforms very well?
*Any suggestions as to which is better than the other (given the limited info) would be very helpful –note: #4 is 2000$ cd more than #3, otherwise, all reasonable prices

Thanks so much!!

 

[Regular Guy]

Duck,

Seems like the upper half of your message isn''t squaring too well with the bottom half, where the best data you present includes % for pavilion, which isn''t reputed to be what you''d like to see.

If you haven''t yet, have you considered working with someone like this, who I think is local to you, is a vendor here that enjoys a good rep, and can probably give you some more options to work with?

 

[oldminer]

If you find a vendor who has super cut diamonds, you will also have found a vendow who has diamonds which fit the cut parameters quite well. The essence of a diamond''s beauty is its appearance, not its parameters on paper. I recommend parameters as screening devices, but they are not the way to finalize a selection.

A super diamond will nearly always have parameters in the upper ranges, but it is the eyes that must make the choice. Like finding a perfect soulmate, you decide with your heart and head and not by physcial measures which helped you initially screen the candidates over the years.

 

[Rhino]

Hi duck,

Sounds like you''ve been experiencing "analysis paralysis". One of the symptoms of Internet shopping.

Folks on the forums will and should encourage gaining as much information as possible since this is an important purchase but it is also possible that in the process of straining at a gnat you wind up swallowing a camel

and as you say... pass by stones that are perfectly fine and just beautiful.

In answer to your questions.

What I want is really simple:

I want a stone that’s both ideal on paper and breath-taking in appearance, in all types of lightening, one with superb brilliance, fire and scintillation. At the same time, I want one that has the absolute best proportions and that’s center clean.

Please review the characteristics of the following round brilliant diamonds we are considering(Ive provided all the info I have on them):

#1.GIA 1.51 D VS2 54/61 VG/VG, gridle thin to medium, no florecene, VSl culet

Sounds good so far but no proportion data leave a looming question mark about this one. BTW GIA''s top cut grades will also allow "VG/VG" polish/symmetry so that''s not necessarily a red flag regarding optical performance.

#2. GIA 1.51 F VS1 57/61.2 G/VG thin to medium, no floracene, small cullet

Numbers look decent but on paper this will not be Ideal or Excellent becaues of the "good" polish grade which disqualifies it from your own criteria.

#3. Gem Scan 1.51 F VS1 57.3/61 S/P not available, crown angle 34.8, pavilion % 43 girdle 1.8 sl thick, no florecene

Very cherry set of numbers. Just get a good professional 2nd opinion on the Gem Scan Report. We''ve seen them and sold them but at times a good 2nd opinion to confirm the grading is a good idea.

The only other pieces of data I''d be interested in seeing or knowing beyond this is lower girdle length and upper girdle angles as these measurments impatct appearance and can also disqualify the stone from being ideal as well but so far so good on this one.

#4GemScan 1.51 F vvs1 56/60.7 crown angle 34.3, pavilion % 44, girlde1.5 medium, culet VS, ideal symmetry, polish unavailable, no florecene; CANADAIN DIAMOND (conflict free)

Pavilion a little on the steep side. It''s nice that its of Canadian origin but many reputable places are offering non-conflict stones now.

Further investigation if you''re going to pursue the first 2. I''d disqualify the last and the 3rd looks the most promising.

-is table of 54 to small? Will it make a 1.51 diamond look smaller? whats the ideal table to max brilliance and fire/scinitlaiton?

No and No. Table sizes from 54-58 are good target sizes but there are certain proportion combinations that will work with larger tables, just not as many.

-is a good symmetry really very bad even if the diamond is georgeus and preforms very well?

Not necessarily but with no proportion data there are still question marks surrounding this one. If you can provide more data on this stone we can give further professional input.

The more data you can get the more input folks here can give to help.

Hope this helps.

Peace and Happy Holidays

 

[Regular Guy]

Duck,

From reading here, you''ll know Rhino''s no slouch, and I see, too, at least now bringing up the HCA, that option 3 not only scores well, but smack in the middle of AGS ideal represented scores, and may be one to run with, if you''re comfortable with having narrowed down your group to those 4.

Good wishes and happy holidays,

 

[duck]

thank you for youre responses...

I know that the info i presented is incomplete, and i definelty will get the full report including pavillion ange, crown ht and crown ange ect before making a purchase. I just presented the info that is available at this point.

Thanks so much Rhino for youre analysis, i really appreciate it!

I agree, the only one i really am considering so far is the third option because the others fall out of ideal range. But for the girlde thickeness, the report jsut said 1.8 slightly thick, no range was given; how do i get the upper and lower girdle numbers?

In response to Regular guy, I Definelty have not narrowed it to these 4, this is just the best ive seen in the size i want so far in T.O. You sound kind of skeptical of the 4 ive presented. I totally agree that more info is needed, but i think all 4 are, from the limited info, high quality dimonds, what do you think?

I really want a dimond that meets the criteria for AGS0, GIA1 AND american ideal cut 1A or 1B that also looks stunning. As far as i can tell, # 3, meets all the criteria (and by the way, its VVS quality although rated as VS1 and spectacular)

I will keep you guys posted and present them again when i have the COMPLETE info!

Thanks!

Pari

 

[Regular Guy]

Pari,

I''m not an expert, so will pass on commenting on the 4; I''ve become accustomed to using the HCA for analysis, and from that point of view, feel comfortable liking #3.

I would caution you, though, to be careful looking for VEN 0 (where your diamond should meet at everyone''s definition of ideal). Although he''s not mentioned it specifically, I will attribute Rhino as the imputed author of the concept, and yet, since even I coined it, it has for me lost value as an attractive marketing concept. Following the first of the year, GIA will be giving ratings on cut, and it''s reasonable to speculate that as a result of their assessments with rounding, some first class diamonds may inaccurately be judged as second class performers.

Maybe better to stick to more trusted scales, like AGS 0.

Hope you''ll be having fun, and best wishes,

 

[Rhino]

No prob duck. Glad to help.

Ok Ira... you got me on this VEN 0 thing. I never caught your post on this.

I''ll have to read that link when I get the chance.

Peace,
Jon

 

[Rhino]

OK ... just read it. I think its funny how much we think alike.

 

[duck]

Rhino, mabey im missing something, but i dont know what lower girdle length and upper girdle angles means (you said you would want to know this info)...

also, just to clarify about table size, are you saying that, all other things being equal, a table of 54 would be just as brilliant as a table of 57 under normal daytime lighting?

the reason im asking is cuz there''s another diamond I may see(its in the states right now) that''s GIA report is as follows:

1.51 D vs2 54/61 vg/vg girdle thin to medium, cutlet VS, no flor;

assuming that the rest of the parameters fall within ideal range and that all the parameters from dimond #3 also meet the criteria, and the prices are comparible and visually they preform equally as well, which is the better buy/which would you prefer? -it almost seems obvious that this one would be it(because of the higher color), but for some reason (im no expert) im very hesitant about the small table. I would think the best table for max brilliance and fire woudl be 56? please forgive my ignorance...