Help - 2ct Round

[Rhino]

I thought I saw value for $$$ being mentioned. My mistake. Either way it''s all good Alj.

Have a great evening!

Kind regards,

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/11/2006 4:16:12 PM
Author: jleone01

Thanks for the input - please direct me to a similar G eye clean Si1 or Vs2 and I will gladly consider - the stone in question was 20K for what everyone has said seems too much for something that would have been considered less than ''ideal'' in 2005. I would have to say I''m a little concerned with how what you call ''steep and deep'' stones are now considered Ex cut by the GIA. Could they retract this in the future in which case I would be left with a less than desirable diamond? Is this cut of stone more profitable to the cutter than say the one you mention above? To me 20K is a considerable decision and I don''t want to feel as thought I was ripped off at the end of the day. Thanks for taking the time to help me.

Didn''t mean not to reply on this one....sorry.

How firm is the 20k mark? If it''s firm, you''re more likely to fall in the I/SI range......

Doing a cut search by quality, I found exactly one G/SI1 stone at the 2ct mark, and it''s this one for $23,883: http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-2458437.htm. As you can see, the non-discounted price runs just over $25K.

There are a handful of 2 ct. G/VS2 stones, and they run in the $26k range when discounted, 28K or so non-discounted.

(FYI - the fact that the stone you posted is so much less [you said it was 20K, right?] than other exceptional PS stones in the same range is probably another indicator that it''s probably not creme-de-la-creme. That''s not a problem.....if you like the stone, it would seem to be decently priced for being less than ideal.)

You could, though, get into a top-shelf cut 2 ct. stone if you''re okay going to I color. I''ve seen a 2.32 ct. well-cut J in person, and it was beautiful, so I expect the I would be fine. I''d suggest you go see a top-cut (AGS0 equivalent), 2ct. I stone to make sure you like it...if you do, you could really do well...here are a few examples:

This one......2.044 I, SI1 for $19,950----is a STELLAR cut and looks eyeclean. A call to the vendor would confirm whether or not it''s clean. (The price is the discounted PS price).

Here''s another: 2.054 I, SI1 for $18853 (also discounted PS price)

Hope this helps.

 

[JulieN]

yes, steep/deeps are a weight saving method for the cutter. they DO know what proportions make good stones.

GIA will not retract your grade, though the cut grading may change in the future. don't think that's going to happen soon with pressure from the industry to keep more of these weight retaining stones as EX. The AGS system used to have steep/deeps in its ideal range, and some stones that were ideal in 2004 would no longer be ideal.

21K H VS2 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2379/ edited!

http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00960205 H SI1, 19K
http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00451258 G SI1, 2.01 21.5K

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/11/2006 8:34:49 PM
Author: JulieN

21K H VS2 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2365/ (numbers on the sidebar are messed up, but should be right on AGS, Sarin, and Helium)

That''s not all that''s wrong. Honestly, the hearts image looks like it might match the messed up numbers in the spread table.

The H&A image shown is ca-ca. That''s not an H&A stone by anyone''s definition.

I suspect the spread table info and the H&A image go together, but they don''t belong to that 1.96 stone. (Gosh, at least I hope this is the case; I''d hate to think anyone is selling that hearts image as an H&A stone intentionally.)

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/11/2006 8:56:01 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/11/2006 8:34:49 PM
Author: JulieN

21K H VS2 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2365/ (numbers on the sidebar are messed up, but should be right on AGS, Sarin, and Helium)

That's not all that's wrong. Honestly, the hearts image looks like it might match the messed up numbers in the spread table.

The H&A image shown is ca-ca. That's not an H&A stone by anyone's definition.

I suspect the spread table info and the H&A image go together, but they don't belong to that 1.96 stone. (Gosh, at least I hope this is the case; I'd hate to think anyone is selling that hearts image as an H&A stone intentionally.)

Ooops.

Our bad. A few new 1.8-1.9x stones came in and Chas didn't finish editing all the data. I'll bring that to his attention first thing in the mornin and crack the whip.

Thanks for pointing that out Alj. Julie is correct though, while the numbers on the side bar look a little wacky, the photography, scans and reports are all in order. Apologies.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/11/2006 10:02:00 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/11/2006 8:56:01 PM
Author: aljdewey

The H&A image shown is ca-ca. That's not an H&A stone by anyone's definition.

Ooops.

Our bad. A few new 1.8-1.9x stones came in and Chas didn't finish editing all the data. I'll bring that to his attention first thing in the mornin and crack the whip.

Thanks for pointing that out Alj. Julie is correct though, while the numbers on the side bar look a little wacky, the photography, scans and reports are all in order. Apologies.

The photography is in order?

So you're saying that the hearts image IS correct? It goes with that 1.966 stone? Jon, are you sure? It really is that diamond??? and you're actually selling that stone as an H&A? Please tell me that H&A image isn't really the 1.966 stone.

I'm surprised.......not the standards I'm used to seeing from you. The hearts are different sizes, the clefts are *huge*, the arrowheads aren't even....

If that image is a true representation of that stone, I'm disappointed.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/11/2006 8:34:49 PM
Author: JulieN

http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00960205 H SI1, 19K
http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00451258 G SI1, 2.01 21.5K

Also have to say this first BN stone looks very promising! If it's eyeclean and performs as the numbers suggest it should - GREAT find for the $$.

 

[Kim N]

Date: 8/11/2006 11:53:03 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/11/2006 8:34:49 PM
Author: JulieN

http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00960205 H SI1, 19K
http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00451258 G SI1, 2.01 21.5K

Also have to say this first BN stone looks very promising! If it''s eyeclean and performs as the numbers suggest it should - GREAT find for the $$.

Ditto. I like the look of that stone. Alj, quick question: what are clefts in that picture?

Jleone, nope, I don''t work for WF. If you do a Cut Quality Search yourself, as many of us do when searching for stones, you''ll see that it''s all about inventory. Recommendations are simply what we think are good stones among the inventory that pop up in the search.

 

[JulieN]

It''s the split in the heart. Cleft lip?

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/11/2006 11:01:50 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/11/2006 10:02:00 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/11/2006 8:56:01 PM
Author: aljdewey

The H&A image shown is ca-ca. That''s not an H&A stone by anyone''s definition.

Ooops.

Our bad. A few new 1.8-1.9x stones came in and Chas didn''t finish editing all the data. I''ll bring that to his attention first thing in the mornin and crack the whip.

Thanks for pointing that out Alj. Julie is correct though, while the numbers on the side bar look a little wacky, the photography, scans and reports are all in order. Apologies.

The photography is in order?

So you''re saying that the hearts image IS correct? It goes with that 1.966 stone? Jon, are you sure? It really is that diamond??? and you''re actually selling that stone as an H&A? Please tell me that H&A image isn''t really the 1.966 stone.


I''m surprised.......not the standards I''m used to seeing from you. The hearts are different sizes, the clefts are *huge*, the arrowheads aren''t even....

If that image is a true representation of that stone, I''m disappointed.

The data on the page is corrected. There was a programming error when the Sarin imported the data to our database which is why the wrong numbers in that column and wrong H&A designation. For clarification the stone is not a Hearts & Arrows diamond and it is not presented as one (now stone #2379). What do ya know? Computers can make mistakes too.

Regarding our standards. When I run across a 1.96ct H VS2 and the stone has insanely beautiful optics and falls in the zenith of AGS Ideal and GIA Ex YOU CAN BET I''ll buy it for inventory. Yes, most stones in our inventory are H&A but when a rare combo like this comes along, which isn''t very often, this requires very little thought on our part. Plus all the data and photography are presented so anyone looking at it knows the details up front and is not, by any means buying blindly. No need to be disappointed. We carry non H&A at times too and in this case, even if the computer botched something up, the details are there in plain sight.

Regards,

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/12/2006 11:39:29 AM
Author: Rhino

The data on the page is corrected. There was a programming error when the Sarin imported the data to our database which is why the wrong numbers in that column and wrong H&A designation. For clarification the stone is not a Hearts & Arrows diamond and it is not presented as one (now stone #2379). What do ya know? Computers can make mistakes too.

Regarding our standards. When I run across a 1.96ct H VS2 and the stone has insanely beautiful optics and falls in the zenith of AGS Ideal and GIA Ex YOU CAN BET I''ll buy it for inventory. Yes, most stones in our inventory are H&A but when a rare combo like this comes along, which isn''t very often, this requires very little thought on our part. Plus all the data and photography are presented so anyone looking at it knows the details up front and is not, by any means buying blindly. No need to be disappointed. We carry non H&A at times too and in this case, even if the computer botched something up, the details are there in plain sight.

Rhino, stop getting so defensive, will ya? GEEZ.....you''re just itching to make trouble and look for insult where NONE is intended.

Look your previous post.....what you said was "the numbers on the side bar are wrong." YOU NEVER SAID that it was also incorrectly labelled as an H&A. Therefore, after your clarification, it still appeared that you were selling that stone as an H&A.

I have NO ISSUE with selling non-H&A stones, and I''m not knocking you at ALL for it. Tons of vendors sell non H&A stones, and like this one, I''m sure they are beautiful and represent a great value.

If would really be nice if you could read past that enormous chip on your shoulder and instead stick to reading what''s written. In fact, just read more carefully period.........that would go a looooooooooong way toward understanding what people are really saying to you.

I never said that stone itself isn''t absolutely beautiful...... nor did I say (or even imply) that you shouldn''t sell non-H&A stones. WF, J/A, Wink, etc. etc. all sell stones that aren''t quite ideal, and I think it''s good....it serves the market better by offering just shy of premium choices to those who are trying to work their budget. Most of those "just shy of premium stones" are still damn stretch better than anything they''ll find at the chains.

My "standards" comment was STRICTLY limited to thinking you''d lowered your standards if you were calling THAT stone an H&A......because I know you know better. And if Brian, Wink or anyone else I highly regard said that was an H&A stone, I''d say the exact same thing to them too.

You only said the spread table was wrong, but because I know you only select top-quality stones for the H&A designation, I KNOW you woudn''t sell that as an H&A. I pressed to clarify because I knew it had to be a mistake.

That''s actually a COMPLIMENT to your judgment, and if you''d suspend your "picked on, short man" complex for a minute and really read it, you''d realize that.

 

[JulieN]

Alj, he replied to your post about the hearts and arrows, and not to mine about the sidebar numbers.

 

[fire&ice]

This is a 2 carat mark G/SI1 stone graded by GIA. It''s proportions look to be decent. The person has seen the stone in person & says it''s beautiful. The price of 20k is certainly in line - if not on the nice price side. It''s a bird in the hand.

Why does everyone try to find stones that are more expensive, less carat weight or lesser color for this person to buy? Alls the while thinking that this stone will not be better than the others when NO ONE has done a visual except the poster.

 

[JulieN]

Beauty aside,
1. steep/deeps are small for their weight. I have no problem suggesting a 1.97 stone with a diameter of 8.01 mm when the stone he's considering is 8.02 mm.
2. color is masked with great cut. If I'm buying a G, I want it to face up like an ideal G.

G SI1s over 2 cts (GIA)
1. 20500 with PS discount http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=896800. This is what we call a borderline steep/deep, and GIA rounds numbers up, anyway. It's probably a nice stone if you're willing to live with a little bit of leakage. Ask for Sarin and Ideal Scope. It shows up on the in-house PS search.

2. 20100 http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00406006 vg for polish instead of ex which will not have any effect on the performance of the stone. Classic proportions. Needs a visual check by BN for eye cleanliness. I am not advocating you buy paper, but you could at least compare to your other stone. It's like 20 dollars shipping it back to BN if you don't like it.

Good luck with your search, jleone!

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/12/2006 2:34:53 PM
Author: JulieN

Beauty aside,
1. steep/deeps are small for their weight. I have no problem suggesting a 1.97 stone with a diameter of 8.01 mm when the stone he''s considering is 8.02 mm.
2. color is masked with great cut. If I''m buying a G, I want it to face up like an ideal G.

G SI1s over 2 cts (GIA)
1. 20500 with PS discount http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=896800. This is what we call a borderline steep/deep, and GIA rounds numbers up, anyway. It''s probably a nice stone if you''re willing to live with a little bit of leakage. Ask for Sarin and Ideal Scope. It shows up on the in-house PS search.

2. 20100 http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00406006 vg for polish instead of ex which will not have any effect on the performance of the stone. Classic proportions. Needs a visual check by BN for eye cleanliness. I am not advocating you buy paper, but you could at least compare to your other stone. It''s like 20 dollars shipping it back to BN if you don''t like it.

Good luck with your search, jleone!

Carat weight is not only mental - but reflective in price/worth. I would have no problem wearing a less than 2 c carat weight. But, the mark certainly WILL carry a premium both real and imaginative. Also, while stones with good makes naturally face up "brighter" - an H is an H. And, paying the same if not more for an H doesn''t make any sense.

Also, this stone has very good proportions. It''s an SI that UPON INSPECTION is eye clean. I see no reason not to shop around - but I also see NO reason to put the nix on this one.

I don''t see the conventional wisdom of nixing a stone that none of us have seen & for all practical purposes could be a very nice make. It''s a prevailing theme here. Looking at options is reasonable. But, saying that this one is better than her''s is just plain paper chasing.

I believe that posters searching for other stones is giving; but, not at the loss of a bird in hand.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/13/2006 11:39:19 AM
Author: fire&ice

Carat weight is not only mental - but reflective in price/worth. I would have no problem wearing a less than 2 c carat weight. But, the mark certainly WILL carry a premium both real and imaginative. Also, while stones with good makes naturally face up 'brighter' - an H is an H. And, paying the same if not more for an H doesn't make any sense.

Also, this stone has very good proportions. It's an SI that UPON INSPECTION is eye clean. I see no reason not to shop around - but I also see NO reason to put the nix on this one.

I don't see the conventional wisdom of nixing a stone that none of us have seen & for all practical purposes could be a very nice make. It's a prevailing theme here. Looking at options is reasonable. But, saying that this one is better than her's is just plain paper chasing.

I believe that posters searching for other stones is giving; but, not at the loss of a bird in hand.

Who put the nix on that stone, F&I? I honestly don't see anyone saying jleone shouldn't buy the stone.

When the initial question was posed, the OP didn't mention having already seen and liked the stone. The only content was "here's the stats, any input."

Based on the stats, the stone *may* be a winner or it may have leakage due to crown/pav combo. The folks who replied didn't say it's a dog, they said it's *unlikely* to be a strong pick.

Once OP said "It looked nice to me", input changed to "well, if you've seen it and you like it, that's the most important thing."

No one said he should let go of the bird in hand, but if he's trying to find out if he can do better before committing to a purchase decision, I don't see why folks shouldn't respond to that.

ETA: Not to mention, the OP *asked* if people could suggest other stones for him to consider. Doing so isn't nixing the one in hand, or telling him not to buy it. It's providing what he asked for.....nothing more.