Garry whadya think of this one-is aset attached

[sparkles]

..

 

[sparkles]

..

 

[sparkles]

sarin info

diam dev 0.5%
total depth 5.98mm 61.2%
table size 5.53mm 56.6% 0
cr a 33.4 (33.1 - 33. 1
cr h 1.40mm 14.3%
cr a 40.9 (40.6-41.3) 0
cr d 4.21mm 43.1% 0
culet size .04mm 0.4 0
girdle min 1.5% med 0
girdle max 2.4% sl thk 0
star upper ratio 52.48
lower girdle halves 80% based on gia rounding

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

the lighting is way too strong on the IS setup - so ignore the leakage - it looks like a keeeper though to me, although there is a little itsy bit of painting, probably on thecrown

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

hum, I hope they didn''t burn it...looks a little like toast to me.

 

[sparkles]

Garry, its a 3.50Hvs2 and its not small change....good enough to keep still please? thanks

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Aha - it is too big for easy photography Sparkles.
That explains the images.

As I said - looks like a keeper - but now we know how big it is - it is very hard to find exceptionally well cut large stones. and as you all know - I am a great believer that stones should be a little shallower than most other experts - and that because they are less effected by dirt.

I have proven that to many people when Drena wore a shallow and a bang on Tolkowsky earring to Vegas one year - all the so called H&A''s Tokowsky nuts preferred the shallow stone - a fact that most of them try to foget, or claim they had had too much to drink.

 

[sparkles]

Okay...so help me out..this is a little deep, yes?

 

[sparkles]

Okay..I just read that the depth should be a smidge just under 60. So what table and angles combinations will I looking be looking at then please?
Am I assuming that this would still score well on the HCA. I guess not.

 

[sparkles]

Don''t worry, i just went back to the tutorial section and found the set of angle parameters.

Did a search on pricescope.....guess what. nothing exists with a depth under 60 in the h vs2/si1 range....why am I not surprised.

 

[whatmeworry]

Date: 9/20/2007 2:07:18 AM
Author: sparkles
Okay..I just read that the depth should be a smidge just under 60. So what table and angles combinations will I looking be looking at then please?

Am I assuming that this would still score well on the HCA. I guess not.

Hi Sparkles, there are lots of well cut stones with depths over 60. You got some bad information. Hint: look at the depths of the signature diamonds of the vendor who gave you those images. I bet they''re all over 60.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

sparkles you need to stop, take a deep breath and relax.

HCA is 1.1. It is not deep, it is sweet.

There is variability of 0.7 degrees in both the crown and the pavilion angles - but when I look at the symmetry evident in the ideal-scope image I can see that this is only because there is a slight table tilt (or maybe dust on the scanner platform) and this is a non issue. If there was only a variablility in either angle then this would not be bad. So it is good.

It is a very nice stone.

 

[strmrdr]

7.5 out of 10 is how id score it.

 

[sparkles]

7.5 out of 10 for the $$$ hubby is spending is not going to cut it

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/20/2007 12:54:56 PM
Author: sparkles
7.5 out of 10 for the $$$ hubby is spending is not going to cut it

Want 9.5 to 9.8 out of 10 look at the aca line from them.
(no stone gets 10 out of 10 because there is always compromises)

 

[sparkles]

So why the 7.5

ACA hvs2/si1 aren''t laying around in this size

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

well, I am sure you have been looking so I hope my information isn't too repetitive of what you have already uncovered. but I did want to point out that James Allen has quite a few very nice diamonds in that price range. They don't offer all of the information that whiteflash does but I would think they would have to be fools to not find some way to work with you and make you satisifed. and when I purchased from them they certainly didn't come across as fools.

Here is a G VS2 AGS0 3.66 ct for 61,000 http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-997669.asp

And if you were not fully satisfied with these angles--which I suppose might be possible, they dont give a date on the report but it might be using an older AGS cut grade for the 0 standard, something to find out at least--but they have a large selection of other such high quality diamonds, many of them GIA certified but with closer to tolk ideal numbers and they also have cheaper options with lower clarity/color and so forth. A pretty handsome supply of them in fact. but remember this, they also have some HIGHER COLORLESS SI1 diamonds that cost even less than that G VS2.

So when you run the search I say:

set the color range from D-H (or whatever color you feel is the lowest you want)

then set clarity from IF to SI1

range cts from your minimum ct (I guessed 3.4) up to 4.5cts just to make sure you don't miss out on a good deal

then consider what your maximum budget is and increase it by 10%, just so you can see other more expensive items, incase there is something really incredible just a little over budget.

Then sort by price so you aren't too tempted by the most expensive items

There should be a couple of pages of items open for you to view, but not too many to sort through, and plenty with some really nice cuts.


They also offer some such as this: 4ct G VS2 Hearts and Arrows for 91k: http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-896789.asp

and you were right, WF sure doesn't have much selection in there ACA line, just this one for 99k

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-72794.htm#


and GOG has a solasefaria that you might want to look at

http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/solas359hvs2/

Though I suppose that might not be what you are looking for, and it doesn't give much information.

Anyway, I say if WF doesn't have what you are looking for then you ought to give JA a chance as they seem to have a pretty nice supply. I wish I could recommend blue nile, but they just don't offer enough information, hopefully JA will be smart enough to give you the information or opportunities you need to make a purchase of this degree. My fingers are crossed for you.

 

[FireGoddess]

WHFSR - if Sparkles is trading in her pear, then her tradeup policy is with WF, hence the not looking at other vendors.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Date: 9/20/2007 1:46:05 PM
Author: FireGoddess
WHFSR - if Sparkles is trading in her pear, then her tradeup policy is with WF, hence the not looking at other vendors.

ohhhh, whoops, sorry

wasn't keeping up with your whole story, my apologies. I hope they can bring something in for you that will make you fully satisfied!

Honestly though its a little aside from the real point here, I am still really confused why that IS image is so out of the ordinary. they seem to be able to take other large diamond IS images quite well, so why not this one?

 

[sparkles]

FireGoddess the nail on the head.

Workingforsmallrewards, sounds like you think I should pass on this diamond!

 

[Ellen]

With all due respect to all involved, my only question is this. Why doesn''t this IS look like Harriet''s, which is the same size as sparkles? If it''s truly a size issue, can they redo it, or is some of it actually the cut?

Harriet''s stone.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/20/2007 6:40:53 PM
Author: Ellen
With all due respect to all involved, my only question is this. Why doesn't this IS look like Harriet's, which is the same size as sparkles? If it's truly a size issue, can they redo it, or is some of it actually the cut?

Harriet's stone.

It’s a different setup now Ellen. Harriet's and others currently in-stock were shot in prior systems.The backlighting is hotter these days and we’ll need to address that if we begin getting many future 3+ ct stones in. A completely different setup would be most appropriate (try playing ping pong with a tennis ball). Scanners have similar relativity issues, which is why Sarin comes with different stages - graduated in size.

Garry's assessment is the most accurate sight-unseen judgment.The diamond is a firecracker but does not have the optical symmetry we're used to seeing on PS. H&A are rare in these sizes…but everything is rare in these sizes.

 

[Ellen]

John, thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it.

I started to post earlier that if Gary gave it a thumbs up, being a diamond guy and various gizmo inventor, that surely it would be fine. But I just couldn''t get the pic of Harriet''s IS out of my head, as it was drop dead gorgeous. So, I asked.

sparkles, I would have a look at it if I were you.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I have a feeling that if you put that one side by side with an ACA, most of us would not be able to tell which was which. We all get so hooked on perfection, that we might be dismissing a perfectly wonderful stone! My big question would be, is this stone subject to the trade-in policy? If not, I wouldn''t consider it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/20/2007 7:52:13 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I have a feeling that if you put that one side by side with an ACA, most of us would not be able to tell which was which. We all get so hooked on perfection, that we might be dismissing a perfectly wonderful stone! My big question would be, is this stone subject to the trade-in policy? If not, I wouldn''t consider it.

Right on DS

I have moderately strong views on H&A''s as being a "mind game" rather than a visual game.
I challenge (often) anyone to (including Brian) to tell the difference between a stone with a great ideal-scope image - but no prices for H&A''s level symmetry.

No one takes the bait because they know it is a mind thing and not a visual thing. It is a cute marketing concept.

And that means that it can deserve a marketing premium, just as VVS1 cost more than VVS2.

Now as for Sparkles - that decision should be hers and hers alone. It is her mind after all.
And as for pricing - I expect there can be a difference based on what people can get for diamonds that meet the marketing mind games criteria. But i do not do prices anyway.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Date: 9/20/2007 6:32:32 PM
Author: sparkles
FireGoddess the nail on the head.


Workingforsmallrewards, sounds like you think I should pass on this diamond!

oh no no, not at all, nor would it really matter if I did as I have very little knowledge I only meant that if there were other diamonds that had something that you felt more comfortable with then you should go ahead and get that something else rather than settle for something else that bothers you.

If gary says the information looks good that means alot to me. And if JQ says it is a top performer and performs in that top 10 or 5 or whatever percentage that you are aiming for, then i say trust the man and take a look, for certain. He has def. earned my trust, for however little that is worth

The part that gets tricky is exactly what a "firecracker" means. I imagine that while you might not be caught up in Hearts and Arrows you probably want something that visually performs close enough to the performance of an ACA that JQ could not separate the two on performance alone, at least within a good 30 minute test. If you are looking for something at that level, then just ask him. If he says not quite at that ACA performance level, find out how far off he seems to think it is and exactly HOW it is different, as it might just be a matter of different types of performance--such as a little less fire and a little brighter. then weigh your options on if that difference is worth waiting or if its close enough to make your move now.


but my honest opinion, for 3.5cts don''t even consider doing it unseen. Tell them you are coming down and you want to compare the performance of this one and various others side by side with at least one similarly sized ACA, do a blind test and a critical 2 or 3 day long analysis. Then, after they have given you some free champagne and smoked sausages, various lighting to view it in and several different blind tests followed by numerous lengthy side by side comparisons where you know what ALL the numbers and what differences are thus SUPPOSED to exist, THEN make a purchase. At that point you will really know what you are buying and what your options are, and for a 50+K purchase it seems worth it to me--and still cheaper than buying at a local BM or selling elsewhere would be. but thats how I would play the game, and not before they had enough options to make it worth my time to head down to Houston.

but that might not be an option for you in which case I say ask JQ is heartfelt opinion on this diamond''s performance, a critical analysis of it, and I think JQ will be good to his word.

 

[JohnQuixote]

WHFSR - Thanks sincerely for your vote of confidence. I hope to live up to your words.

Given the interest in this thread, we thought it would be helpful to show ideal-scope and ASET images generated in DiamCalc from the 3D scan. Normal disclaimer: Though scans are becoming more and more accurate we feel they are secondary to the real deal and actual photos.

Ideal-Scope

 

[JohnQuixote]

ASET

 

[JohnQuixote]

This thread compels a couple of thoughts:

First, I hope people judging from home will appreciate how difficult it is to create a standardized photo system for diamonds.It takes an investment of equipment and human resources, especially reflector photos, and the few sellers that produce these images for clients work extremely hard to make them happen.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Second, don’t take optical symmetry for granted. I fear consumers who are accustomed to seeing the reflector images for the very precise diamonds carried by the top sellers on PS begin thinking every diamond will have H&A.

Here is the DiamCalc-generated hearts image for this stone.

In line with Garry’s sentiments, this is a great thread to illustrate that great performers don’t necessarily show H&A. Here is a GIA EX EX EX predicted to be AGS 0/1 for light performance. Bear in mind that it is also a lot closer to H&A than many top-graded diamonds “out there.”