Found a BEAUTIFUL diamond

[echelon6]

I haven''t posted in a long while, but I was just looking through some new inventory of some vendors here and came across this doozie:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3586/

F-SI1 1.52ct
PA 40.81 (40.69-40.91) - ultra-tight specs from helium scan!
CA 34.57 (34.51-34.65)
Depth: 60.96%
Table: 56.37%

Triple VH on Bscope

GIA EXEXEX

Check out the optical symmetry! Perfect symmetry is so rare in this size range... if I didn''t already buy my 1.588ct I would snap this up in a second.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Even though I already have my stone, I still look through the GOG inventory as well! This stone is a beauty, as most of them are!

 

[ccuheartnurse]

I like checking out GOG''s website from time to time. Jonathan always has such nice stones & so well documented too. The lastest I see are videos comparing similar stones. Thats really a fantastic commitment to customer service.

Judy

 

[echelon6]

His usual stock is on par with some of the best around PS. I just felt compelled to bring to PS the attention of this particular one because of the following points:

Pros:
1) Very tight PA AND CA at precise Tolk proportions (which usually is not tight at all)
2) Perfect IS image (not only with symmetrical arrows, but symmetrical minutiae such as table reflection patterns, equal sized white spots, minor girdle facets, etc)
3) Perfect Hearts image, no signs of tilting at all. Even the ''side-dots'' are symmetrical!
4) Triple VH on BScope (which is a rarity in itself amongst standard H&A - they usually get 2 VHs only)
5) F-SI1 which is a major sweetspot for me and many others
6) Very fairly priced in my opinion
7) Rare size to find quality diamonds in (just look at current vendors'' inventories at this size range - they aren''t very impressive, sorry.)
That''s 7 rare features coinciding on this diamond!

Cons:
1) GIA instead of AGS
2) GOG should really buy a better Idealscope. (hardly a con to the diamond itself)
Seriously that''s all the cons I can think of...

In my opinion I wish I waited on my diamond purchase as I definitely would have bought this one. (A few months ago I bought a 1.58ct ACA which was fantastic, but not as perfectly symmetrical as this baby)

This diamond ought to be used as a model for promotional pictures by GOG. (Rhino can I put a 5-year reserve on this diamond?!?!? Name your price for this privilege!)

a STRONG BUY recommendation from me nonetheless.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/17/2007 2:05:32 AM
Author: echelon6
His usual stock is on par with some of the best around PS. I just felt compelled to bring to PS the attention of this particular one because of the following points:

Pros:
1) Very tight PA AND CA at precise Tolk proportions (which usually is not tight at all)
2) Perfect IS image (not only with symmetrical arrows, but symmetrical minutiae such as table reflection patterns, equal sized white spots, minor girdle facets, etc)
3) Perfect Hearts image, no signs of tilting at all. Even the ''side-dots'' are symmetrical!
4) Triple VH on BScope (which is a rarity in itself amongst standard H&A - they usually get 2 VHs only)
5) F-SI1 which is a major sweetspot for me and many others
6) Very fairly priced in my opinion
7) Rare size to find quality diamonds in (just look at current vendors'' inventories at this size range - they aren''t very impressive, sorry.)
That''s 7 rare features coinciding on this diamond!

Cons:
1) GIA instead of AGS
2) GOG should really buy a better Idealscope. (hardly a con to the diamond itself)
Seriously that''s all the cons I can think of...

In my opinion I wish I waited on my diamond purchase as I definitely would have bought this one. (A few months ago I bought a 1.58ct ACA which was fantastic, but not as perfectly symmetrical as this baby)

This diamond ought to be used as a model for promotional pictures by GOG. (Rhino can I put a 5-year reserve on this diamond?!?!? Name your price for this privilege!)

a STRONG BUY recommendation from me nonetheless.

How come?

 

[rainydaze]

ha! i have this one bookmarked..... i don''t know what for since i''m not buying a diamond, but it sure seemed like the kind of diamond that deserved a bookmark!!

 

[gontama]

Date: 10/16/2007 8:52:58 PM
Author:echelon6
I haven''t posted in a long while, but I was just looking through some new inventory of some vendors here and came across this doozie:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3586/

F-SI1 1.52ct
PA 40.81 (40.69-40.91) - ultra-tight specs from helium scan!
CA 34.57 (34.51-34.65)
Depth: 60.96%
Table: 56.37%

Triple VH on Bscope

GIA EXEXEX

Check out the optical symmetry! Perfect symmetry is so rare in this size range... if I didn''t already buy my 1.588ct I would snap this up in a second.

It is sometimes rewarding to go through GOG inventory...
I was not able to act quickly because of the APA (A Price Above..).
I would like to add this diamond to the "GOG collection"

http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/1926

I should not have worried about the feather thing and VG polish.
Somebody got it while I was debating myself.
No matter how you look at it (asbolute / table relative) it is extremely tightly cut on c/p.
Have never seen this level of tight cut.
Even now I sometimes remember this diamond.
GOG site is in fact an art (at least to me).

I know Ellen''s diamond is also super-super.
Knowing that the owner is her on PS I will not post her diamond.

 

[Ellen]

gontama, you can post anything about my diamond anytime you like. I''m very proud of it.

 

[gontama]

Here is Ellen's beauty. It is also very very tight.
GOG site has been a very good place to learn with real diamonds.

http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/1897


In one old thread (I do not recall where it is), Storm was very
curious about lgf of this diamond in light of its other specs that
were talked about. He has not seen this page. Must have been
doing theoretical analysis ... He knows ...

You replied (and sometimes say) it is 75%. But it is GIA rouding.
I think Hellium reflects yours appearance.
It is actually 77 (length) 78.6 / depth and is pretty close to others
that come with this cutting style. Glad to have a chance to let you
know this. 75 has another kind of beauty - awesome looking
with gorgeous arrow.

super-super

 

[Ellen]

gontama, I have indeed refered to them as 75 (for the sake of possibly others with rounding), but have also posted them at (mistakenly) 75.6, it''s really 75.7, from the GIA facetware page. Somewhere along the way not all that long ago, I did see the measurements for them on the Helium page. I hadn''t even looked at them there, as I just assumed it was close to the 75.(6)7.

Plus, I already had the diamond in (and on) hand, and knew what it looked like.

But yes, they are 76.9 according to Helium.



And thanks for appreciating my precious.

 

[gontama]

Date: 10/18/2007 9:52:44 AM
Author: Ellen
gontama, I have indeed refered to them as 75 (for the sake of possibly others with rounding), but have also posted them at (mistakenly) 75.6, it''s really 75.7, from the GIA facetware page. Somewhere along the way not all that long ago, I did see the measurements for them on the Helium page. I hadn''t even looked at them there, as I just assumed it was close to the 75.(6)7.

Plus, I already had the diamond in (and on) hand, and knew what it looked like.

But yes, they are 76.9 according to Helium.



And thanks for appreciating my precious.

People looking at your diamond pics *might* think 75 would look like that.
I was just slightly concerned about potential misunderstanding because
your diamond is famous here. I know you know very much about its beauty.

 

[Mark21]

Echelon6 -- Perfect timing on this post, because I am in the market for exactly this kind of stone. In fact, this is the one that I have my eye on right now:

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1107187.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

An F, Vs2, rating 1.3 on the HCA, nice Idealscope... Anyone have thoughts on a comparison of the two???? Thanks!!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/18/2007 10:21:18 AM
Author: Mark21
Echelon6 -- Perfect timing on this post, because I am in the market for exactly this kind of stone. In fact, this is the one that I have my eye on right now:

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1107187.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

An F, Vs2, rating 1.3 on the HCA, nice Idealscope... Anyone have thoughts on a comparison of the two???? Thanks!!

Mark, it may be best to start your own thread in Rocky Talk as you will get more opinions and advice that way! Welcome also

The diamond you are considering is fabulous by the way!! Great job!

 

[Ellen]

I understand what you''re saying gontama. I think most understand though, that GIA rounds, and therefore 75 may not actually mean that.

I wonder though, just how much hair splitting it is between 75-75.6-76.9. From things I''ve read from the experts, I think we''re possibly talking about splitting split hairs, for the most part?

I just don''t want customers to get too wrapped up in the numbers and pass up a killer stone.

But I really DO appreciate your concern, and it has now been duly noted.

 

[belle]

Date: 10/18/2007 10:30:01 AM
Author: Ellen

I wonder though, just how much hair splitting it is between 75-75.6-76.9. From things I''ve read from the experts, I think we''re possibly talking about splitting split hairs, for the most part?

I just don''t want customers to get too wrapped up in the numbers and pass up a killer stone.

hairsplitting indeed. there is just too much sparkle going on to see those small differences.

when people start talking about miniscule numbers and the potential differences that might be seen, i wonder if they have ever spent any time at all with a well cut diamond in real life.

 

[gontama]

Date: 10/18/2007 10:30:01 AM
Author: Ellen
I understand what you're saying gontama. I think most understand though, that GIA rounds, and therefore 75 may not actually mean that.

I wonder though, just how much hair splitting it is between 75-75.6-76.9. From things I've read from the experts, I think we're possibly talking about splitting split hairs, for the most part?

I just don't want customers to get too wrapped up in the numbers and pass up a killer stone.

75 and 77 are probably different when one get used to. 75 and 79 will be different to anyone. It is not about the performance or amount of light return. It is really a matter of preference or taste or distribution of light return. Paul @ Infinity said LGF alone does not mean much and I think it is true. But generally, I think shorter LGF emphasize the bold arrow, which is nice, and tend to give big flash. Longer lgf seems to give nimble and intense light return and I remember people talked about this thing. We confirmed with several diamonds that what are discussed are true (or can often be true at least). It is not good or bad at all. I like to have both if possible.

But I really DO appreciate your concern, and it has now been duly noted.

It is not as serious as I might have sounded at all. I have just long wanted to let you know this.

 

[echelon6]

Date: 10/18/2007 10:21:18 AM
Author: Mark21
Echelon6 -- Perfect timing on this post, because I am in the market for exactly this kind of stone. In fact, this is the one that I have my eye on right now:


http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1107187.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131


An F, Vs2, rating 1.3 on the HCA, nice Idealscope... Anyone have thoughts on a comparison of the two???? Thanks!!

The JA stone is definitely cheaper, but with no sarin/helium, I cant comment on the tightness of the c/p angles. From the IS image, the GOG stone definitely has better optical symmetry. All of these factors do not affect the beauty of the diamond on a noticeable level, so its purely a mental issue of attaining perfection. The JA stone is much cheaper and should be great, but if you''re after perfection, the GOG rock wins in my opinion.

Ellen''s stone looks very tight too. I''m starting to see a pattern here with GOG stones, many are very tight according to their helium scans

 

[gontama]

Date: 10/18/2007 10:39:28 AM
Author: belle

Date: 10/18/2007 10:30:01 AM
Author: Ellen

I wonder though, just how much hair splitting it is between 75-75.6-76.9. From things I've read from the experts, I think we're possibly talking about splitting split hairs, for the most part?

I just don't want customers to get too wrapped up in the numbers and pass up a killer stone.

hairsplitting indeed. there is just too much sparkle going on to see those small differences.

when people start talking about miniscule numbers and the potential differences that might be seen, i wonder if they have ever spent any time at all with a well cut diamond in real life.

Sorry Belle if I sound too serious about this. No intention to mislead/confuse anyone and I tried to be careful about this because both are beautiful, just different. We actually spent some time for this particular comparison (75, 77, and longer). 75 and 79 will have different beauty and will be very likely more than harispliting for anyone. It is not about anything like light leakage or darkness that are not good for diamonds. Please do not take too seriosuly.

 

[Lorelei]

Matk, I see the James Allen diamond has been sold? I hope it was you that bought it! I am sure you will be delighted as it is beautifully cut and it will be as spectacular a diamond as you could find!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/18/2007 10:39:28 AM
Author: belle

Date: 10/18/2007 10:30:01 AM
Author: Ellen

I wonder though, just how much hair splitting it is between 75-75.6-76.9. From things I''ve read from the experts, I think we''re possibly talking about splitting split hairs, for the most part?

I just don''t want customers to get too wrapped up in the numbers and pass up a killer stone.

hairsplitting indeed. there is just too much sparkle going on to see those small differences.

when people start talking about miniscule numbers and the potential differences that might be seen, i wonder if they have ever spent any time at all with a well cut diamond in real life.

Ditto Belle and Ellen.

 

[belle]

Date: 10/18/2007 11:24:52 AM
Author: gontama

Date: 10/18/2007 10:39:28 AM
Author: belle

Date: 10/18/2007 10:30:01 AM
Author: Ellen

I wonder though, just how much hair splitting it is between 75-75.6-76.9. From things I've read from the experts, I think we're possibly talking about splitting split hairs, for the most part?

I just don't want customers to get too wrapped up in the numbers and pass up a killer stone.

hairsplitting indeed. there is just too much sparkle going on to see those small differences.

when people start talking about miniscule numbers and the potential differences that might be seen, i wonder if they have ever spent any time at all with a well cut diamond in real life.

Sorry Belle if I sound too serious about this. No intention to mislead/confuse anyone and I tried to be careful about this because both are beautiful, just different. We actually spent some time for this particular comparison (75, 77, and longer). 75 and 79 will have different beauty and will be very likely more than harispliting for anyone. It is not about anything like light leakage or darkness that are not good for diamonds. Please do not take too seriosuly.

you do sound serious about it. especially when you say:

Date: 10/18/2007 9:59:09 AM
Author: gontama

People looking at your diamond pics *might* think 75 would look like that.
I was just slightly concerned about potential misunderstanding because
your diamond is famous here. I know you know very much about its beauty.

that sounds like some serious unwarranted hairsplitting to me!

really. there isn't a huge difference between 75 and 77. especially to the very vast majority of people viewing the diamonds under normal conditions.
might you be able to tell the difference in some lighting conditions (under a backlit microscope or idealscope) perhaps but not under normal, everyday, (sparkly) conditions.
it's statements like that which make people reading think that they might be picking an inferior diamond by choosing 75 over 77 or vice versa.

 

[gontama]

Date: 10/18/2007 11:58:38 AM
Author: belle

Date: 10/18/2007 11:24:52 AM
Author: gontama

Date: 10/18/2007 10:39:28 AM
Author: belle

Date: 10/18/2007 10:30:01 AM
Author: Ellen

I wonder though, just how much hair splitting it is between 75-75.6-76.9. From things I've read from the experts, I think we're possibly talking about splitting split hairs, for the most part?

I just don't want customers to get too wrapped up in the numbers and pass up a killer stone.

hairsplitting indeed. there is just too much sparkle going on to see those small differences.

when people start talking about miniscule numbers and the potential differences that might be seen, i wonder if they have ever spent any time at all with a well cut diamond in real life.

Sorry Belle if I sound too serious about this. No intention to mislead/confuse anyone and I tried to be careful about this because both are beautiful, just different. We actually spent some time for this particular comparison (75, 77, and longer). 75 and 79 will have different beauty and will be very likely more than harispliting for anyone. It is not about anything like light leakage or darkness that are not good for diamonds. Please do not take too seriosuly.

you do sound serious about it. especially when you say:

Date: 10/18/2007 9:59:09 AM
Author: gontama

People looking at your diamond pics *might* think 75 would look like that.
I was just slightly concerned about potential misunderstanding because
your diamond is famous here. I know you know very much about its beauty.

that sounds like some serious unwarranted hairsplitting to me!

really. there isn't a huge difference between 75 and 77. especially to the very vast majority of people viewing the diamonds under normal conditions.
might you be able to tell the difference in some lighting conditions (under a backlit microscope or idealscope) perhaps but not under normal, everyday, (sparkly) conditions.
it's statements like that which make people reading think that they might be picking an inferior diamond by choosing 75 over 77 or vice versa.

Point taken. 75 has a really nice arrow though. 75 and 77 - people may not care about the difference in fact even if they see some difference in some ligting. But 75 - 78 or 79, they began to become evident to us. But 75 and 77 are not good examples, I admit. In some lighting conditions where one can enjoy the arrows most, people may see, but that is not to say one is better or worse at all. Because we do not have PM here, forum was the only way just to tell Ellen about this.

I tried not to be like that. I think I iterated that the difference is a matter of preference. But again saying so may not guarantee people will not make their own assumption about superiority. I understand, and thanks for re-emphasizing for everyone that the difference is not about good or bad at all, which I really meant. My regret.

Edited: I think it is very good for anyone to compare different type of diamonds in person if interested in the potential difference in apperance. It is true that reading is not sufficient.

 

[belle]

Date: 10/18/2007 12:19:54 PM
Author: gontama

Point taken. 75 has a really nice arrow though. 75 and 77 - people may not care about the difference in fact even if they see some difference in some ligting. But 75 - 78 or 79, they began to become evident to us. But 75 and 77 are not good examples, I admit. In some lighting conditions where one can enjoy the arrows most, people may see, but that is not to say one is better or worse at all. Because we do not have PM here, forum was the only way just to tell Ellen about this.

I tried not to be like that. I think I iterated that the difference is a matter of preference. But again saying so may not guarantee people will not make their own assumption about superiority. I understand, and thanks for re-emphasizing for everyone that the difference is not about good or bad at all, which I really meant. My regret.

Edited: I think it is very good for anyone to compare different type of diamonds in person if interested in the potential difference in apperance. It is true that reading is not sufficient.

i''m not going to continue, i don''t want to seem like i am harassing you gontama. i just wanted to clear things up for future readers. not sure it helped anything though! i''ll leave it alone.

 

[Mark21]

Lorelei -- I put it on hold after I posted on here; just didn''t want to take a chance on it being swiped away! I am going to have it sent to me for an inspection and take it from there!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/18/2007 12:50:02 PM
Author: Mark21
Lorelei -- I put it on hold after I posted on here; just didn''t want to take a chance on it being swiped away! I am going to have it sent to me for an inspection and take it from there!

Oh good - it is an awesome diamond and you don''t want lurkers grabbing it!

 

[gontama]

''m not going to continue, i don''t want to seem like i am harassing you gontama. i just wanted to clear things up for future readers. not sure it helped anything though! i''ll leave it alone.

No. You never are (for all other readers).

It helped because I am repeating that the difference is a matter of preference.
Both (or all) of them are nice when coupled with proper parameters.
Not good or bad at all. In fact we (me/wife) have different preference here.

See you.

 

[Ellen]

gontama, I understand you meant well. Thanks.

I don''t think there''s been any real harm done here.