Help choosing from the experts

[antimatter]

This is my first post but i have been lurking for a while. I have enjoyed reading others comments and i have learned a great deal.

I am working my self up to proposing. I have contacted Martin Sheffield from USA certed diamonds and am about to arrange a viewing of one of two diamonds.

Here are the specs for the two diamonds
CT: 1.06
Color:H
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Excellent
Diam. 6.72mm
Depth: 3.96mm - 58.9%
Crown: 33.3 degrees - 13.5%
Pavil: 40.6 degrees - 42.6%
Table: 3.94mm - 53.6%
Cutlet: .7%
Flourecence: Medium Blue
Price: $4547
GIA Report
Sarin Report



CT: 1.03
Color:H
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Diam. 6.57mm
Depth: 4.09mm - 60.9%
Crown: 34.4 degrees - 15%
Pavil: 41 degrees - 43.2%
Table: 3.75mm - 57.8%
Cutlet: .7%
Flourecence: none
Price:$4543
GIA and Sarin Reports



Any advice here? Martin recomended the one with flourecence but said they are both very good stones. I tend to try to get an opinion other than the guy who stands to profit from the sale.

Has anyone else dealt with his company before?

Thanks

 

[strmrdr]

Not enough info to comment.
Do you have the sarin numbers? ideal-scope photos?

Havent delt with them.

 

[antimatter]

Date: 6/15/2005 4:22:13 PM
Author: strmrdr
Not enough info to comment.
Do you have the sarin numbers? ideal-scope photos?

Havent delt with them.

I don''t know what sarin numbers are and i don''t have ideal-scope photos. I am a newbie at this please go easy on me guys

 

[aljdewey]

Sarin numbers are measurements of the diamond that include the crown and pavilion information. They don''t appear on the GIA report, but supplier who have access to these machines can produce a Sarin report for you.

Ask Martin if he can get this data for you. The data helps to determine the make of the stone (how finely it is cut), and that affects the price directly.

 

[antimatter]

Date: 6/15/2005 4:38:14 PM
Author: aljdewey
Sarin numbers are measurements of the diamond that include the crown and pavilion information. They don''t appear on the GIA report, but supplier who have access to these machines can produce a Sarin report for you.

Ask Martin if he can get this data for you. The data helps to determine the make of the stone (how finely it is cut), and that affects the price directly.

Thanks for that explaination. I just emailed him asking for that information. But based on the GIA reports are these good diamonds? Should i be looking at Ideal cut and Polish? ANy comments are welcome

 

[icekid]

well, you really do need additional information to know how nice these stones are. however, based on what little we have right now the second stone is probably better. the first stone looks to be on the shallow side.

personally, i would only buy an ideal cut stone. the cut is the most important factor for sparkle (which is what i want!).

GIA doesn''t have an ideal grade for polish. their highest is excellent. however, they say there is no difference to the naked eye between VG and EX polish.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/15/2005 4:46:52 PM
Author: antimatter
But based on the GIA reports are these good diamonds? Should i be looking at Ideal cut and Polish? ANy comments are welcome

They both have the POTENTIAL to be good diamonds......there''s nothing out of whack with the information, but you don''t have all the information yet. When you get the rest, then folks can tell you.

 

[antimatter]

Thanks for the info and opinions. I will post the information as i recieve it.

 

[RockDoc]

Although you information is limited, I prefer stone #1 to stone 2


Rockdoc

 

[antimatter]

Date: 6/15/2005 6:56:09 PM
Author: RockDoc

Although you information is limited, I prefer stone #1 to stone 2


Rockdoc

Why? if you don''t mind me asking

 

[antimatter]

Hello. I recieved the Sarin Values for the 1.03 round brilliant

How does this stone look? I am sorry i don''t understand these values and charity help would be greatly appriciated.

Thanks

 

[fire&ice]

I like #1. The spread is very good on that one & the fluor could make the diamond face up whiter.

 

[antimatter]

thats what Martin said. Although he mentioned that it was a bit shallow

 

[Kaleigh]

I also like #1.

 

[antimatter]

So here are the final numbers. I will update the first post with these numbers aswell

CT: 1.06
Color:H
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Excellent
Diam. 6.72mm
Depth: 3.96mm - 58.9%
Crown: 33.3 degrees - 13.5%
Pavil: 40.6 degrees - 42.6%
Table: 3.94mm - 53.6%
Cutlet: .7%
Flourecence: Medium Blue
Price: $4547
GIA Report
Sarin Report

CT: 1.03
Color:H
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Diam. 6.57mm
Depth: 4.09mm - 60.9%
Crown: 34.4 degrees - 15%
Pavil: 41 degrees - 43.2%
Table: 3.75mm - 57.8%
Cutlet: .7%
Flourecence: none
Price:$4543
GIA and Sarin Reports

Based on the updated numbers what do you guys think? THe 1.06 seemed to score better on the pricescope cut advisor with excellent all across the board

 

[antimatter]

TTT for the daytime crew.

Knwing the sarin report on the diamonds will any body be kind enough to offer me thoughts on this. I know you veterans must get tired of newbies coming along and asking for help. I am veterin member on another forum do i can understand that. Atleast could you point me in the right direction.

THanks

BTW do you think and H diamond will look good. I am concerned about the color

 

[hoorray]

Lots of people love H stones, and think H is a sweet spot for color -- lower price but not visibly yellow. Some people are very color sensitive (it all depends on your eyes and your preferences.) I would guess that H is going to be fine, but only you can make that final decision.

#1 gets a .5 TIC, and all EX on the HCA. It is on the shallow side, so up close, you might see a dark spot in the center from head shadow. Watch out for this when you look at it and see if it is there, and if it bugs you. It has a great spread, and will look larger than #2, even tho they are close in weight. It intrigues me -- small table, good flour, etc. #2 gets a 1.8, X and 3 VG's. They both score under 2 so both have the potential to be good performers. My guess is that they will look pretty different, so I would see if you could look at them both in various lights, and see what appeals to you more. It's all about what you like at the end of the day.

Lastly, we bought my upgrade stone from Martin. He is a very solid citizen. Honest and easy to deal with. I didn't meet him in person, but would do business with him again, if he had what I was looking for.

 

[Detox]

I am guessing you are in the Toronto area if you are arranging a meeting with Martin. If that is the case I would be very interested in hearing about your full experience..........including how the final cost was calculated.

I also live in the Toronto area and after much research I am ready to look seriously enough to purchase. Are the prices in your post US dollars or Canadian Dollars?

Many Thanks.

 

[antimatter]

Date: 6/17/2005 2:48:31 PM
Author: Detox
I am guessing you are in the Toronto area if you are arranging a meeting with Martin. If that is the case I would be very interested in hearing about your full experience..........including how the final cost was calculated.

I also live in the Toronto area and after much research I am ready to look seriously enough to purchase. Are the prices in your post US dollars or Canadian Dollars?

Many Thanks.

I am actually in california. I am not meeting with martin in person, i am meeting with an independant apprasier. Thats why i want to be sure about the diamond before i have it shipped to the apprasier becasue they will charge a fee wether i purchase it or not, Martin said 50-100 dollars which in my opinion is a good investment.

 

[antimatter]

Date: 6/17/2005 2:35:55 PM
Author: lop
Lots of people love H stones, and think H is a sweet spot for color -- lower price but not visibly yellow. Some people are very color sensitive (it all depends on your eyes and your preferences.) I would guess that H is going to be fine, but only you can make that final decision.

#1 gets a .5 TIC, and all EX on the HCA. It is on the shallow side, so up close, you might see a dark spot in the center from head shadow. Watch out for this when you look at it and see if it is there, and if it bugs you. It has a great spread, and will look larger than #2, even tho they are close in weight. It intrigues me -- small table, good flour, etc. #2 gets a 1.8, X and 3 VG''s. They both score under 2 so both have the potential to be good performers. My guess is that they will look pretty different, so I would see if you could look at them both in various lights, and see what appeals to you more. It''s all about what you like at the end of the day.

Lastly, we bought my upgrade stone from Martin. He is a very solid citizen. Honest and easy to deal with. I didn''t meet him in person, but would do business with him again, if he had what I was looking for.

Thanks for your comments and opinion. I did run those numbers aswell and i am alittle confused on how to gauge them. anywhere between 0-2 is has the potential for being a good performer.

Until i saw those numbers i was leaning towards the 1.03. now i am leaning towards the 1.06 becasue of size, spread, and performance. The only thing i am worried about is the blue flouresence and the shallow depth.

Any aditional comments are welcome

 

[Rhino]

From a different perspective ...

The 33.3/40.6/56 combo (stone #1) will not make AGS ideal grade now. At best a grade 2. This stone will appear dark in the most common lighting conditions. Too much obscuration.

The 2nd stone would just qualify as an Ideal (34/41/5. One or 2 degrees over the 34 angle would put it outside of ideal zone. What disturbs me about this one is a diameter of only 5.57mm. Are you sure this isn''t a typo? If it is a typo and the diameter is really 6.57mm then this is definitely the stone to get (if you''ve only boiled it down to these 2 options). This will be a brighter stone than option 1.

My .02c

 

[antimatter]

Date: 6/17/2005 3:38:03 PM
Author: Rhino
From a different perspective ...

The 33.3/40.6/56 combo (stone #1) will not make AGS ideal grade now. At best a grade 2. This stone will appear dark in the most common lighting conditions. Too much obscuration.

The 2nd stone would just qualify as an Ideal (34/41/5. One or 2 degrees over the 34 angle would put it outside of ideal zone. What disturbs me about this one is a diameter of only 5.57mm. Are you sure this isn''t a typo? If it is a typo and the diameter is really 6.57mm then this is definitely the stone to get (if you''ve only boiled it down to these 2 options). This will be a brighter stone than option 1.

My .02c

I think your about the diamater. I believe it is a typo. The images that are linked in the first post for the GIA and Sarin Report after closer examination it is 6.57.

Thanks for pointing that out.

I havent only boiled it down to these two options. I am thinking about reducing the carrot size to maybe .9 carrot for a more collorless diamond at most F. I think she would apriciate a slightly smaller diamond with better a better cut and clarity.

Do dealers usually have access to idealscope photos?

 

[Dancing Fire]

just by the #''s,i would pass on both of these stone. JMO

#1- too shallow (58.9% depth)

#2- the crown and the pavil angle has too much variance,even though the avg is 34.5'' x 41.0'' (crown 33.4-35.2'') (pavil 40.7-41.6'')

 

[antimatter]

Date: 6/18/2005 2:12:45 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
just by the #''s,i would pass on both of these stone. JMO

#1- too shallow (58.9% depth)

#2- the crown and the pavil angle has too much variance,even though the avg is 34.5'' x 41.0'' (crown 33.4-35.2'') (pavil 40.7-41.6'')

When speaking about #2 you say that there is to much variance. I am trying to understand how you arrive at that since it falls withing the Ideal Cut rating on this website.

I am just trying to understand how one can have a diamond within the range and still be reluctant. The only thing that bothers me about this stone is the color but i am eager to learn how you are ariving at these conclusions.

I also wanted to thank all that replied to this thread. I appriciate your input greatly. Cheers

 

[JohnQuixote]

Hi Antimatter (I love that screen name)

The crown and pavilion angles listed on the Sarin report are each an average of 8 measurements. I have attached an example of a crown scan on a round. The overall 'crown angle' listed for purposes of grading is 34.4. You can see the eight measurements from the scan are 34.4, 34.3, 34.4, 34.6, 34.4, 34.5, 34.3 & 34.6. So, this diamond's crown angle is 34.4 (with variance from 34.3-34.6, which is 0.3 total) - By the way, 0.3 is very tight. Don't expect every diamond you consider to be that precise.

Looking at your candidate #2: The crown angle is 34.5 (with variance from 33.4-35.2, which is 1.8 total). The pavilion angle is 40.0 (with variance from 40.7-41.6, which is 0.9 total). The crown has fairly wide variance in general and the pavilion, while not having so much variance, runs far above 41.1 in at least one place which may make it subject to leakage.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/20/2005 4:40:46 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
Hi Antimatter (I love that screen name)

The crown and pavilion angles listed on the Sarin report are each an average of 8 measurements. I have attached an example of a crown scan on a round. The overall ''crown angle'' listed for purposes of grading is 34.4. You can see the eight measurements from the scan are 34.4, 34.3, 34.4, 34.6, 34.4, 34.5, 34.3 & 34.6. So, this diamond''s crown angle is 34.4 (with variance from 34.3-34.6, which is 0.3 total) - By the way, 0.3 is very tight. Don''t expect every diamond you consider to be that precise.

Looking at your candidate #2: The crown angle is 34.5 (with variance from 33.4-35.2, which is 1.8 total). The pavilion angle is 40.0 (with variance from 40.7-41.6, which is 0.9 total). The crown has fairly wide variance in general and the pavilion, while not having so much variance, runs far above 41.1 in at least one place which may make it subject to leakage.

John
what are you doing up so late or should i say so early.

antimatter
here''s another link of what John is talking about.
http://www.goodoldgold.com/cutanalysis101.htm

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/18/2005 2:12:45 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
just by the #''s,i would pass on both of these stone. JMO


#1- too shallow (58.9% depth)


#2- the crown and the pavil angle has too much variance,even though the avg is 34.5'' x 41.0'' (crown 33.4-35.2'') (pavil 40.7-41.6'')

I agree with DF for the same reasons.

The first would make a nice pendant but not a ring.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 6/20/2005 5:26:53 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
John
what are you doing up so late or should i say so early.

DF - Oh ya know, waiting up for the 'Police Academy' marathon

Antimatter - Regarding color, H is nothing to sneeze at. It's already close to near-colorless. Additionally, a diamond with good light return can mask color. You'll find many PS users who found near-colorless diamonds that 'face up' better than the grade they were given due to great cut (rounds are color graded from the side).

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/18/2005 2:12:45 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
just by the #''s,i would pass on both of these stone. JMO

#1- too shallow (58.9% depth)

#2- the crown and the pavil angle has too much variance,even though the avg is 34.5'' x 41.0'' (crown 33.4-35.2'') (pavil 40.7-41.6'')

Oy... I didn''t notice the variances DF. Thanks for pointing that out. Yep... well ... that would be one I would rule out also HOWEVER let me point out that both DF and I are very anal retentive buyers. If you have already determined that the info provided by this vendor is sufficient for your purchase and don''t care to know the other details concerning optical symmetry and light performance in various conditions then the stone may well suite your needs. It depends on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.

 

[fire&ice]

Still voting for number 1.