Help choosing between 3 G VS2''s, 1.01 in size

[nerdbot]

Hi guys,

I finally decided to ditch the broker I was working with (mentioned here). The savings vs hassle just wasn''t worth it.

I''ve found two local jewelers that have fairly good prices, and 3 stones that I really love. Unfortunately, being GIA certified, I don''t have all the angles so I wasn''t able to do an HCA analysis. Here''s what I have:

Stone 1 from Shop ''A'':
Weight: 1.01 carats
Measurements: 6.42 - 6.45 x 3.97 mm
Depth: 61.7%
Table: 57%
Girdle: Medium, faceted
Polish: Ex
Symmetry: Ex
Clarity: VS2
Color: G
Fluor: None
Inscribed
Price: $7272

Stone 2 from Shop ''A'':
Weight: 1.01 carats
Measurements: 6.6 - 6.65 x 3.98 mm
Depth: 60.1%
Table: 55%
Girdle: Thin to medium faceted
Polish: Ex
Symmetry: Ex
Clarity: VS2
Color: G
Fluor: None
Price: $7100

Stone 3 from Shop ''B'':
Weight: 1.01 carats
Measurements: 6.51 - 6.53 x 3.96 mm
Depth: 61%
Table: 56%
Girdle: Thin to medium faceted
Polish: Ex
Symmetry: Ex
Clarity: VS2
Color: G
Fluor: None
Price: $6800

I''ve looked at both stones from Shop ''A'', and Stone 2 seems a little bit shallower than Stone 1. Ideally, I''d like to get Stone 1, but they won''t budge any further on price (those prices are post-haggling). Stone 3, I haven''t seen yet (will early next week). Just by looking at the numbers, and with my limited experience, Stone 3 seems to be in between Stone 1 and Stone 2, when it comes to shallowness. That is, Stone 2 is a more shallow cut than Stone 3 which is a more shallow cut than Stone 1. Or am I wrong?

I''m not exactly sure Stone 2 is 1.01 in size. I was told a "true" 1 carat must measure more than 6.5 across, and Stone 2 is 6.6. When I plugged Stone 2 in to this analyzer:

http://www.jewellerycatalogue.co.uk/diamonds/diamond_analysis.php

this was the result: "Weight 1.01ct Calc 1.07ct Re-cut 1.04ct". Not sure what that means. Similarly, Stone 1 came in with: "Weight 1.01ct Calc 1.01ct Re-cut 0.96ct"

Finally, the last issue is with buying the stone is that I am definately buying the setting from Shop ''A''. I''m sure they wouldn''t be too happy with me not buying both from them, and they''ll charge me ~$100 to mount the stone because of it.

What is everyone''s thoughts on these stones?

 

[fire&ice]

Just from the numbers you gave Stone 2 appears nice - what did you think when you compared stone 1 to stone 2. Which one spoke to you. How does stone 3 look in person?

 

[nerdbot]

Stone 1 looked a tad smaller than Stone 2, and I assumed it was because Stone 2 had a shallower cut. Then again, I''m not experienced enough to know that Stone 1 could have been cut too deep (in a bad way). Stone 1 "spoke to me." I thought it sparkled a little better, but honestly, I''m not sure. I''ve looked at probably 30 stones now, and while I feel really comfortable looking at them under the microscope and an idealscope, I have a hard time telling differences between two similar stones with the naked eye. Even when asked to look for sparkle, fire, brilliance, etc.

Speaking of idealscope, I should mention I liked the way Stone 1 looked under the idealscope better. But, it was unmagnified, so again I could be wrong.

As soon as I see Stone 3 (next week), I''ll let you know.

Is there any other sort of analysis I can do based on the numbers I have?

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 4/21/2005 5:56:14 PM
Author: nerdbot

Speaking of idealscope, I should mention I liked the way Stone 1 looked under the idealscope better. But, it was unmagnified, so again I could be wrong.

As soon as I see Stone 3 (next week), I''ll let you know.

Is there any other sort of analysis I can do based on the numbers I have?

I was about to show you this site, tell you that stone #2 had better odds only, but all could be cherry or bad, and that, according to Garry Holloway, an ideal scope could help you. But...you''ve seen them with an idealscope! By the book, that''s very good news, and I think goes a long way to confirming #1, until -- as you say -- you see #3.

Still, $7,000 is a lot of money. This guy must know you''re serious. I would have thought his own contacts would get him access to sarin technology to review crown & pavilion angles, and for my own taste, I''d really like to have that. You know, I think Dave Atlas will do this for $10 bucks a pop, and you could level with your local jeweler, tell him you''ve got this resource called Pricescope with lots of groovy deals, give him Dave''s contact info, and tell him if he only gets you the data you''ll want, you pay him up front for the info, ($75 for all 3 with shipping?) if he agrees to discount this back to you if you end up buying one of them.

If you''re uncomfortable doing this, or either he or you would make you feel a whiner for asking...don''t do it. But, if you''re going to end up wanting this data from an appraiser before you agree to a non-returnable purchase...you''re just putting yourself through girations by drawing out the process without asking for it up-front.

Just some ideas.

 

[Cath]

Stone 1 *should* look smaller than Stone 2 (based on measurements above you can tell already). Stone 2 is not as deep and also the girdle is thin to medium whereas Stone 1''s girdle is just medium. Therefore, Stone 1 is retaining more of its carat weight in the girdle and pavilion, places where you can''t see it.

It sounds like you think Stone 2 is TOO shallow, which isn''t the case. 60.1% depth is still within the "ideal" range and comes with an upside -- visually, it looks bigger.

Is there any way the jewelers can you give a Sarin analysis for the stones? This will give you the numbers you need to run them through the HCA.

Based on the numbers you gave, all the stones look great so far.

 

[nerdbot]

I was about to show you this site, tell you that stone #2 had better odds only

I'm not sure I follow. Are you using that page to illustrate that while Stone 1 is closer to 60:60 it doesn't mean it's a better stone?

You know, I think Dave Atlas will do this for $10 bucks a pop, and you could level with your local jeweler, tell him you've got this resource called Pricescope with lots of groovy deals, give him Dave's contact info, and tell him if he only gets you the data you'll want, you pay him up front for the info, ($75 for all 3 with shipping?) if he agrees to discount this back to you if you end up buying one of them.

I found this page on Dave's site (http://www.gemappraisers.com/publicAppraisal.htm), and I don't see where I can just get a Sarin report? Shop 'A' showed me a couple stones with Sarin reports, but they were WAY out of my price rage (D color). I agree with you, I'm inclined to hold out for a Sarin report too.

Given that the symmetry and polish are both excellent, as well as all the other numbers, for all 3 stones, is this more a subjective decision of "which do I think looks best"? Or, is it still possible for one of these stones to has poor visual "performance"? Am I fool to hold out for a stone with Sarin reports, even when these numbers are already very good?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/21/2005 9:51:56 PM
Author: nerdbot

Am I fool to hold out for a stone with Sarin reports, even when these numbers are already very good?

I would not bother getting the numbers if the stones are already handy, GIA certs & all.

All have cherry specs on the reports (why would be 60% depth "shallow" ? who says that ? not AGS or AGA...). The one thing left to tell the winner apart is brilliance and that you can surely judge yourself. The IScope is good too and if one stone looked better under consistent viewing conditions, that kind of tells me you know how to use it. If the "winner" by IdeaScope is the same as the stone that appears brightest visually... this is it. I could not imagine what is left to say about that stone.

 

[nerdbot]

The IScope is good too and if one stone looked better under consistent viewing conditions, that kind of tells me you know how to use it.

Not too sure about that.

The diamonds under the idealscope don''t look the same as the ones on WhiteFlash.com. The hearts and arrows are all white, rather than black. The idealscope they had didn''t look anything like the ones found here (ideal-scope.com).

Instead, it looked more like the WhiteFlash viewer, where there is no magnification and no back light:
http://whiteflash.com/images/site/wfviewer.jpg

Is this viewer still a valid tool to use for analyzing the cut? How would I determine leakage? And would holding a loupe to the opening of the viewer be an acceptable way to jerry-rig magnification to the viewer?

 

[Regular Guy]

Hey there,

Responding backwards...

Date: 4/21/2005 11:13:24 PM
Author: nerdbot
The diamonds under the idealscope don''t look the same as the ones on WhiteFlash.com. The hearts and arrows are all white, rather than black. The idealscope they had didn''t look anything like the ones found here (ideal-scope.com).

Instead, it looked more like the WhiteFlash viewer, where there is no magnification and no back light:
http://whiteflash.com/images/site/wfviewer.jpg

Is this viewer still a valid tool to use for analyzing the cut? How would I determine leakage? And would holding a loupe to the opening of the viewer be an acceptable way to jerry-rig magnification to the viewer?

So, I think you misspoke earlier, saying you saw the diamonds through an idealscope. Truthfully, depending on the day, Garry Holloway will suggest this other utility, too, but for specifically assessing light return, that is what an idealscope is used for, it can be a key assessment tool, and although the hearts & arrows viewer you probably used can be another helpful assessment tool to check aspects of symmetry, it''s not designed specifically to look at light return.

So a few things; consider getting yourself an idealscope, and then perhaps you can more readily follow Ana''s instructions, though, note my caveat in this post.

Going backwards, I pointed to the 60:60 web page to help illustrate the general point that knowing only table and depth information, while a traditional approach, does not provide enough info to analyze cut.

Re Dave''s availability to help with Sarin data...though I can''t say for sure he still does this, he said he does not long ago here.

Finally, regarding your comment:

"Given that the symmetry and polish are both excellent, as well as all the other numbers, for all 3 stones, is this more a subjective decision of "which do I think looks best"? Or, is it still possible for one of these stones to has poor visual "performance"? Am I fool to hold out for a stone with Sarin reports, even when these numbers are already very good?"

I think the answer to your question would best be determined by data I have not seen presented. My hunch is that when you have a) a GIA cert, and b) excellent for both polish & symmetry, your odds are greater that the whole thing has been given greater attention for quality, such that your likelihood is certainly better than average for a good outcome on cut. Perhaps it is even the best most jewelery stores can get when looking to assert the moniker: "ideal." Regardless, at best, I think you will only increase your odds with this approach, you''re only buying one diamond -- you hope -- for an engagement ring, and as far as I know, the only way to get measurable info on your diamond, to assess its ability to perform, is to get crown & pavilion info you do not have now. Maybe in a few months even, the newer crop of GIA certificates will all have this and more...but not now.

Again, Ana & Garry will insist a good red on the Idealscope may be all that you need. Perhaps this will be enough. Conveniently, Dave also is the distributor for these in the US, so if you decide to pursue getting sarin data from him, you can consider doing a "two-fer," shipping both the diamonds and idealscope. Or one or the other. Whichever.

With best wishes,

Regards,

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/21/2005 11:13:24 PM
Author: nerdbot

The IScope is good too and if one stone looked better under consistent viewing conditions, that kind of tells me you know how to use it.

Not too sure about that.

The diamonds under the idealscope don''t look the same as the ones on WhiteFlash.com. The hearts and arrows are all white, rather than black. The idealscope they had didn''t look anything like the ones found here (ideal-scope.com).

Instead, it looked more like the WhiteFlash viewer, where there is no magnification and no back light:
http://whiteflash.com/images/site/wfviewer.jpg

Is this viewer still a valid tool to use for analyzing the cut? How would I determine leakage? And would holding a loupe to the opening of the viewer be an acceptable way to jerry-rig magnification to the viewer?

that is a H&A scope not an I-scope.

 

[Regular Guy]

P.S. Re the thought...

Date: 4/21/2005 9:51:56 PM
Author: nerdbot

I agree with you, I''m inclined to hold out for a Sarin report too.

...not sure if you get HBO, or have seen Larry David''s Curb Your Enthusiasm on the Telly. Before you go through any of these service gyrations, going to Dave Atlas, etc. , you could give your jeweler one of those Larry David quizzical stares, say to your jeweler...look, you''ve a very nice shop, but your supplier may actually have a sarin to help us both, and why don''t you give them a call and find out.

Anyway, I was going to say that if you''re going to consider enlisting a third party for just preliminary info, and if you do go to Dave Atlas, you could consider a three-fer while you''re at it, understanding that seeking sarin data is only towards interpreting light performance anyway, and ask him to additionally scan those three on his new Imagem technology, which is designed to report on exactly that, removing the inference altogether. These things would actually be reasonable, considering that you''re considering optimizing at this point between one of these three anyway.

Just some further thoughts for you...

With best wishes,

 

[nerdbot]

Date: 4/22/2005 7:25:34 AM
Author: Regular Guy
P.S. Re the thought...
...not sure if you get HBO, or have seen Larry David''s Curb Your Enthusiasm on the Telly. Before you go through any of these service gyrations, going to Dave Atlas, etc. , you could give your jeweler one of those Larry David quizzical stares, say to your jeweler...look, you''ve a very nice shop, but your supplier may actually have a sarin to help us both, and why don''t you give them a call and find out.

Yeah, I was going to call both of them today if they could somehow get them, and if not, I''ll wait for a diamond that does have one.

Anyway, I was going to say that if you''re going to consider enlisting a third party for just preliminary info, and if you do go to Dave Atlas, you could consider a three-fer while you''re at it, understanding that seeking sarin data is only towards interpreting light performance anyway, and ask him to additionally scan those three on his new Imagem technology, which is designed to report on exactly that, removing the inference altogether. These things would actually be reasonable, considering that you''re considering optimizing at this point between one of these three anyway.

Should/Would I contact him through his website, or contact him privately through PriceScope here?

Thanks for all the great advice!

 

[nerdbot]

Date: 4/21/2005 11:52

2 PM
Author: Regular Guy
Maybe in a few months even, the newer crop of GIA certificates will all have this and more...but not now.

Incidentally, what is the rumored ETA for the new GIA certs? I was hoping to surprise her and propose long before she was expecting it, but I think I could conceivably hold off until early fall.

 

[fire&ice]

A sarin is NOT a NECESSITY. Please don''t NOT buy any of these stones because of the lack of it. You have the luxury of viewing the stones. Look at them in all lighting arenas. Also, as Ana (Valeria) also pointed out, the specs you list are "cherry".

I like #2 from the numbers because it is bigger on paper; but, let your eyes decide!

Good luck.

 

[nerdbot]

Date: 4/22/2005 10:17:26 AM
Author: fire&ice
A sarin is NOT a NECESSITY. Please don''t NOT buy any of these stones because of the lack of it. You have the luxury of viewing the stones. Look at them in all lighting arenas. Also, as Ana (Valeria) also pointed out, the specs you list are ''cherry''.


I like #2 from the numbers because it is bigger on paper; but, let your eyes decide!


Good luck.

Unfortunately, I don''t trust my eyes.

When I don''t have my contacts in, I wear coke-bottle glasses.

In all seriousness though, I said before, I''ve only looked at about 30 stones or so in my search, and I never know what to look for. I''ve read PriceScope''s pages for brilliance, fire, and scintillation. It made me more confused. I''m sure the lighting in a jewelry shop is intentionally set to produce a certain result, similar to how electronic stores have dark lit rooms for the big screen and plasma tv''s (non-typical, non-everyday lighting, but ideal for showing off how well it *could* look). I''d feel much more comfortable if I had numbers to back up my assumptions... maybe I should bring a friend in for a second opinion...

I''ve been thinking/analyzing/worrying about it so much lately that I think I''m trying to just get it over with. I think I need to take it slow.

 

[nerdbot]

Note: Screenshots below

I've decided to purchase a diamond from an online vendor, get an independent appraisal, and keep it if everything checks out. I did have one question however. When I was sent the additional info on the stone in question, one of the first images was a screenshot of some application. It had a breakdown of the different measurements of the stone, and a few diagrams. What caught my attention was that for things like the crown and pavillion angle, it gave a range that encompassed the angles listed on the AGS cert, but the average shown did not match the AGS cert.

For example, the AGS cert says:
Depth: 60.8%
Table: 54%
Crown Angle: 34.6 degrees
Crown Height: 15.6%
Pavil Angle: 40.7 degrees
Pavil Height: 43.0%

Whereas this application shows:
Depth: 60.9%
Table: 54.8% (54.2 - 55.1)
Crown Angle: 34.8 degrees (34.6 - 35.0)
Crown Height: 15.5% (15.2 - 15.6)
Pavil Angle: 40.9 degrees (40.5 - 41.2)
Pavil Height: 43.3% (43.2 - 43.6)

I ask because when I use the numbers on the AGS cert in HCA, I get "very good" for the Spread, and "excellent" for everything else. When I use the numbers in that screenshot, I get "very good" for everything. I realize that third party tools, and even the appraisal, will come up with slightly different numbers than the AGS cert, I just wanted to get more experienced opinions on this.

Here are a few of the screenshots I was sent:

Application screenshot:

Idealscope:

Brilliance Scope:

 

[Dancing Fire]

nerdbot
they almost never match,i had (6) sets of #''s from 6 different machines.this one looks like a nice stone.do you have a picture of the harts?

 

[nerdbot]

Date: 4/25/2005 3:39:18 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
nerdbot

they almost never match,i had (6) sets of #''s from 6 different machines.this one looks like a nice stone.do you have a picture of the harts?

That''s what I figured, thanks for confirming.

And, yes, I do have pictures of the hearts and arrows: