Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Help choosing a diamond.

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
F

Firelance

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
16
I''ve been lurking on these forums a little bit, trying to soak up some knowledge. There is so much to learn. The time has come for me to request help directly though :).

This will be for my girlfriend''s engagement ring and I''m comparing two diamonds currently, any advice is greatly appreciated:

#1
RB 1.03 Carat, F color, VS2, EX/VG, rated a very good cut....

Table: 57
Depth: 59.6
Crown Angle: 34.5
Pavilion Angle: 40.4

#2

RB 1 Carat, F color, VS2, EX/EX, rated excellent cut and HA.

Table: 58
Depth: 61.8
Crown Angle: 35.5
Pavilion Angle: 40.4

I was a little confused by the cut adviser, as #1 returns much better ratings (ex. in every category) but lands completely outside the boundaries of GIA/AGS recommendations. While #2 is within the GIA range but has lower ratings from the adviser. Also, should the VG symmetry rating on #1 be a large factor? Can someone advise?

#2 is a little bit more affordable but the price is roughly similar. Any other suggestions would be appreciated as well. My budget is around $7000 for the stone.

Thanks for everyone''s help. This is quite a vexing matter.

Michael
 
#2 looks nice by the numbers.

have you seen them in person?
 
No, these are through James Allen. They have a NY office and I'm in NY so I might set up a visit at some point. Thankfully they have a decent return policy as well.

It looks like the crown angle might be too high on #2? I misread it as 34.5 initially, doh!
7.gif
.
 
I just sent them an email about it.

However, I''m a doofus, the pavilion angle is 40.6, not 40.4 as I initially wrote. Any chance a mod can edit it? It''s too late in NY for me to writing these things out.
 
link the stones.
 
#1
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1067887.asp

#2
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?find=1&cid=130&item=1079699

Thanks all...sorry for the posting mistakes.
 
second one is beautiful. 1st one is too shallow.
 
idealscope image attached. I have no idea how to read this thing :).

1079699 Idealscope.jpg
 
Date: 11/2/2007 11:17:37 AM
Author: Firelance
idealscope image attached. I have no idea how to read this thing :).
Click to expand...
it says:

great diamond!

2.gif
 
Thanks, that''s reassuring to hear :). I guess I will think about it over the weekend.
 
The ideal scope image is very nice. You want a symmetrical mix of black and red with little white. Red is light return, black is good for contrast, and white is leakage.
 
Date: 11/2/2007 5:18:01 PM
Author: kcoursolle
The ideal scope image is very nice. You want a symmetrical mix of black and red with little white. Red is light return, black is good for contrast, and white is leakage.
Click to expand...
Also, white is not entirely bad......properly placed white (depends on where it is and how much) contributes to good contrast/scintillation.
 
Well, I decided to take the jump, will buy tomorrow afternoon. Thanks everyone.
 
arrrghh, she changed her mind and said she wanted a "square" diamond ;). Back to the drawing board, thanks everyone.
 
Two look like options to me.

I''m not sure what differentiates at WF for Princesses their ACAs from non ACA. You may know, or if not...ask them between these 2...or of course, any others.
 
I would suggest looking at the gorgeous cut-cornered square stones called Princess of Hearts from Good Old Gold. There is a video link on the home page as well as the normal diamond search.

WhiteFlash also has a cut-cornered princess called the x-factor.
 
Those two whiteflash ones look nice but they have table % above 68%. Doesn''t the AGA grading scale say to stick between 62-68%?

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/fnc1.asp

I have to relearn everything now I guess.
 
A number of threads on that difference...including David Atlas aka Oldminer, the author of those charts. I''d suppose an AGS0 will provide a significantly greater liklihood of appealing optical performance than the constraints AGA notes...though the AGA charts serve a purpose, and Dave himself, when seeking now to map performance for diamonds, prefers a different system he''s partnered to devise, anyway.
 
I was thinking of this one from James Allen, they don''t have all the numbers on the report though....

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Princess-Diamond-1105587.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

I''m actually feeling a little pressed for time since I wanted to do this over thanksgiving but she changed her preference on the diamond shape at the last moment.
 
Date: 11/10/2007 11:48:48 PM
Author: Regular Guy
A number of threads on that difference...including David Atlas aka Oldminer, the author of those charts. I''d suppose an AGS0 will provide a significantly greater liklihood of appealing optical performance than the constraints AGA notes...though the AGA charts serve a purpose, and Dave himself, when seeking now to map performance for diamonds, prefers a different system he''s partnered to devise, anyway.
Click to expand...

Okay, that''s good to know. Thanks, I''ll search for those threads.
 
hmm, looking at those old threads, it seems best to rely on AGS reports.

How about this diamond from whiteflash, assuming it is eyeclean?

http://whiteflash.com/aca_princess/A-Cut-Above-Princess-cut-diamond-312224.htm

I''m not sure on the idealscope image though but the AGS report is excellent.

*sigh* she''s still undecided on round vs. square ;).
 
Date: 11/11/2007 12:26:56 AM
Author: Firelance
hmm, looking at those old threads, it seems best to rely on AGS reports.

How about this diamond from whiteflash, assuming it is eyeclean?

http://whiteflash.com/aca_princess/A-Cut-Above-Princess-cut-diamond-312224.htm

I''m not sure on the idealscope image though but the AGS report is excellent.

*sigh* she''s still undecided on round vs. square ;).
Click to expand...
Yes, that may be great. This one, too...I think a bit less...has a slightly wider girdle you might favor.

I think generally with fancies (non-rounds) you want to try maybe to be a little more conservative on clarity, since I think there''s a greater liklihood to see whatever inclusions do exist, based on the shape. So...ask about eye cleanness in both.
 
Well, it turns out that she doesn''t want a "square" diamond so much as a she doesn''t want a "spherical" one. When I told her the round ones are actually tear dropped shaped, she was open to a round. So I think I might still go with the original round brilliant and return it if she doesn''t like it. James Allen has a 30 day period versus the 10 day from Whiteflash so I''ll go with them first and then switch if she wants a different cut.

No she doesn''t know a lot about diamonds :). She just wants something shiny, ;).

Thanks everyone.
 
Not sure if I get the tear drop thing, but that''s OK.

JA sounds like a good option, and I did buy from him. GOG might be another option too, seeings you''re in NY. For example....

Good wishes,
 
I guess I meant, she was under the impression that round diamonds are spheres like a tennis ball or a pool ball, not pointy and elongated on the bottom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top