Help make my girl the happiest

[romanthony]

In preparing for my impending proposal, I finally managed to (hopfully subtly) find out what is the maximum stone size my gf would feel confortable wearing. It turns out she wouldn''t like anything larger than 0.55 (approximately).

I have contacted a diamond supplier, and explained that I can spend my budget on a high quality smaller stone. He''s come back with this selection of stones:

-1-
Weight 0.5
Color E
Clarity VVS2
Prop hearts
Polish/Sym VG/VG
Fluor None
Table 56
Measurements 5.01x5.06x3.17
Cert HRD
Price $2,578
More detail http://www.original-diamonds.co.uk/stock_diamonds.php?action=info&id=2101726

-2-
Weight 0.51
Color D
Clarity IF
Prop hearts
Polish/Sym EX/EX
Fluor None
Table 55
Measurements 5.16x5.18x3.15
Cert IGI
Price $3,843
More detail http://www.original-diamonds.co.uk/stock_diamonds.php?action=info&id=2049116

-3-
Weight 0.51
Color E
Clarity VVS2
Prop hearts
Polish/Sym EX/EX
Fluor None
Table 58
Measurements 5.05x5.08x3.18
Cert GIA
Price $2,709
More detail http://www.original-diamonds.co.uk/stock_diamonds.php?action=info&id=2048765

-4-
Weight 0.54
Color E
Clarity VVS2
Prop hearts
Polish/Sym EX/EX
Fluor Slight
Table 54
Measurements 5.23x5.26x3.26
Cert GIA
Price $2,897
More detail http://www.original-diamonds.co.uk/stock_diamonds.php?action=info&id=1941475

-5-
Weight 0.56
Color E
Clarity VVS2
Prop hearts
Polish/Sym EX/EX
Fluor Slight
Table 56
Measurements 5.31x5.33x3.28
Cert GIA
Price $3,005
More detail http://www.original-diamonds.co.uk/stock_diamonds.php?action=info&id=1941681

After having read all possible tutorials and guides, I still find it hard to find significant differences between these diamonds. However, even though these are all hearts and arrows, there are still differences in table, sizes, etc. I just want to give her the most sparkling and beatuful diamond possible. I would appreciate your comments on this selection, and the supplier if you have heard about them.

Thanks in advance.

 

[mrssalvo]

Hi romanthony

the first link wasn''t availible
the second- i''d stay away from IGI certs...
the third - don''t like #3- girdle thickness to thick..table too large for me..
the forth and fifth have potential but neither had crown or pavilion angle''s listed to be able to run them through the HCA..

 

[diamondseeker2006]

#5 has a very thin girdle, so I''d probably eliminate that one, too.

 

[february2003bride]

I agree with the above comments and would like to suggest this one:
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-2438547.htm#

Good luck!

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 7/31/2006 8:37:55 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
#5 has a very thin girdle, so I''d probably eliminate that one, too.

yep, me too. missed the very thin girdle when looking...

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 7/31/2006 8:16:12 PM
Author: mrssalvo

the forth and fifth have potential but neither had crown or pavilion angle's listed to be able to run them through the HCA..

As you'll read here, that's an important thing to note. Also, that vendor certainly isn't popular here...not that there's anything wrong with that.

The same can't be same for WF and GOG, both of whom are popular here, and who invariably supply those sorts of missing pieces of info. One from each are ones you might want to consider, both at around $2500 US (edited to add...and February's choice from WF above is nice, too!).

 

[Lorelei]

Welcome to PS

Are you in the UK? Just curious as to your choice of vendor. Also we would need more info as Mrs Salvo says to help you with each diamond, the crown and pavillion angles are a must!

 

[romanthony]

Thanks Lorelei

Yes, I am based in the UK, and a friend recommended this supplier.
I''ll try to get hold of the missing info, and get back to you.

Do prices look too good (or too bad!)?

Thanks to everybody for your help.

 

[romanthony]

I guess another important question would be, are these good pieces for this price?
Don''t try to be polite with my lack of expertise!

If you think I could do better, or that this selection is somewhat disappointing, by all means let me know.

Thanks again!

 

[JulieN]

I think if I were you and I were trying to make the most of my money while going for high quality, I'd go for a .56-.59 E/F VS.

I figure D and VVS is just pure overkill, and that if you're already paying for the $/ct jump at .5 cts, you might as well maximize it. That is, if you're going to go for something that's .5-.53, you might as well go down to something just shy of .5 cts.

I'm personally liking something like this $2081 w/ PS discount http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=861690

 

[Lorelei]

Anthony, is it very important to you to have the top colour and clarity? If not as Julie says you can drop both those a bit and still have a very white and clean diamond...Also I suppose we have to weigh up if you buy from this company it might avoid customs and import duty etc than if you ordered from the States. However the GB pound is very strong at the moment so that is a plus for you if you convert.

 

[JulieN]

http://www.diamondexpert.com/diamonds/dbs.cgi?sf=detd.setup.cgi&active=active&stock=RB20001509&submit_search=1

"colorless and flawless" does kind of have a nice ring to it.

 

[romanthony]

Date: 8/1/2006 7:19:16 AM
Author: Lorelei
Anthony, is it very important to you to have the top colour and clarity? If not as Julie says you can drop both those a bit and still have a very white and clean diamond...Also I suppose we have to weigh up if you buy from this company it might avoid customs and import duty etc than if you ordered from the States. However the GB pound is very strong at the moment so that is a plus for you if you convert.

hmm... let me put it this way- for me the important thing is to give my gf whatever she''ll like most. As I am a complete newbie on this, I thought that locking the size at around 0.55, if I could afford the top color, and a really high clarity, I should go for it.

However, reading your comments, it feels as if the differences between D,E and even F were not that significant (the same between VVS2 and VS1).

I would happily go down a level in color, if I had absolute guarantee that the cut is as good as it can be. The problem is that even between these stones, all Arrow cut, with Excelent polish, symetry etc, people are still finding wrong dimensions. That makes me very frightened of making a poor decision...

 

[Lorelei]

Don''t be worried, there is a lot more to buying a diamond than meets the eye! Also try not to be in a rush and take the time to learn about diamond cut, a D IF if badly cut is going to look like a chunk of glass, it is the cut that makes it beautiful.

Here is the link to the tutorial http://diamonds.pricescope.com/

There is nothing wrong with wanting the best with colour and clarity at all if that is what matters to you, but that means nothing without the cut. Here at PS we see daily the cream of the crop cut diamonds and it can tend to make us very picky! Learn about these major factors and their importance: Don''t forget those crown and pavillion angles, they are critical to help assess light performance!

Depth
Table
Crown angle
Pavillion angle
Girdle thickness
Flourescence
Certification.

Also yes you can drop the colour and clarity and still have a fab diamond as long as the cut quality is there. Also don''t go by labels stuck on various diamonds by vendors such as Premium, Ideal Cut etc, they don''t often mean very much. The only way to tell if a diamond is cut to it''s best is to check out the numbers, Idealscope images if available and to get a Sarin report run on the diamond. Also be careful that if you want a H&A cut that is exactly what you are getting.

 

[romanthony]

I finally got the missing info for the stone, from a sarin report:

Weight: 0.54
Diameter: 5.26 (5.24-5.2 [0.8%]
Total Depth 61.8% 3.25mm
Crown Angle 34.3''
Crown Height 15.8% (15.5-16)
Pavil Angle 41'' (40.9-41.2)
Pavil Depth 42.8% (42.5-43.1)
Culet 0.4%
Table Size 54.5% (54.2-54.
Girdle Thickness 1.7% (1.4-2.2) Medium
Star/Upper 56.3 : 43.7 %
Proportion 0

What is your honest opinion?

 

[romanthony]

Here-s a scan of the report itself.
I am very scared of making the wrong decision, so I''ll appreciate the utmost honest feedback.

Thank you

 

[JulieN]

Pavil Angle 41' (40.9-41.2)
Not lovin' it, but it's definitely not a trainwreck, either.

wait, have to look at pretty pictures first...

 

[drk]

I''m not expert enough to give advice on the potential diamonds you listed, but have a couple more comments:

- if I had a certain budget in mind and wanted a smaller near-colourless e-ring diamond, I''d be tempted to go for an F-G VS2-SI2 (eye-clean). I don''t think colour should be as noticeable in a well-cut smaller diamond. Then if my taste in the setting itself was also fairly simple, I''d think about spending the money I saved by going F-G VS2-SI2 rather than D IF-VVS on a nice pair of small diamond stud earrings! They''d make an awfully nice Christmas or wedding gift...

- beware diamond shrinkage syndrome! I initially thought I wanted nothing larger than about 0.7-0.8ct. I ended up going for a 1.2 ct and am very happy with it. I think erings have smaller diamonds on average in the UK vs the US, so 0.55 may well be the right choice for your GF. It would be nice to have bought from a vendor with an upgrade policy just in case she "outgrows" her diamond in the future.

Good luck with your search!

 

[Lorelei]

I think you could do better as Julie says it is hardly a train wreck, but could be improved on. Any Idealscope images?

 

[romanthony]

Thank you for your feedback. Clearly you are not in love with this stone...
can I ask you what is it that lets it down?

I run it throught the HCA, and it gave 1.7, with EX VG VG VG... is that the problem?

thanks again

 

[Regular Guy]

Romanthony,

I'm with you.

Though there may be other issues or not (i.e., maybe someone is concerned about variances in angles?), I don't think it makes sense to try to be smarter than HCA...the point of that tool is to use it to understand those angles that are complimentary to each other. On the face of proportion analysis alone, I think you're good.

 

[Lorelei]

Don't take the HCA as gospel, it is a tool to weed out lesser performers, not one to state that a diamond will automatically perform well, however it is an extremely useful tool we are so lucky to have here.

From my point of view, the crown and pav angles are just a tad out of my preferred range, also the depth could be a little less, the main thing IMO is the medium girdle which I wouldn't personally choose, but in all this could be a very pretty diamond, just that the dimensions could be a little tighter. But still it could be a great choice for you, we tend to have our own sweet spots here, this diamond is far better cut than many you would find.

 

[romanthony]

Thanks again for your comments.
Bearing in mind that I favour fire to brilliance, what proportions should I be looking for then?

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 8/3/2006 12:32:19 PM
Author: Lorelei

... we tend to have our own sweet spots here...

I don''t know about you, but I think we''ve been dissed. Do you think we''ve been dissed?

To the question:

"Bearing in mind that I favour fire to brilliance, what proportions should I be looking for then? "

A couple of things.

1) You could look for FICs.

But, they are few and far between, naturally. Maybe 10 months ago a poster here seemed to come up with a credible protocol to find them, so you could look for his post. But, I wouldn''t bother.

2) Other more arcane discussions may help you, including studies of LGFs and more may help. Guys like Jonathan at GOG or even John at WF might be able to direct you to this, perhaps. But, you''re looking local, right. I think you''d be challenged to do more than go mainstream, designed to more or less balance brilliance with fire.

 

[whatmeworry]

Interestingly enough, a stone (RD01) with similar proportions to the stone you are look at (except for pavillion angle) scored the second highest Fire score (DCLR) among 29 research diamonds. And not too shabby on the brilliance metric (WLR).

Sample Weight Clarity Color Crown Pavilion Table Star facet Lower-girdle Girdle Culet WLR DCLR
RD01 0.61 VS1 E 34.3 40.6 54 53.8 81 2.9 0.91 0.283 3.97


Here''s the link to the GIA Fire study. No easy answer to what proportions to look for but you can check out the study and get some idea. (smaller table, longer lower girdles, etc.)

http://www.gia.edu/pdfs/Fall_2001_Cut.pdf

 

[JulieN]

fire>brilliance: steep crown, shallow pavilion, smaller table, and long LGF

Small stones (.25 and less) are usually cut with steeper PA and larger tables.

.5 cts isn''t a small stone, but it''s not large, either... we really need a Garry, strm, or John to chime in. So in this case, I probably wouldn''t mess with Tolkowsky too much.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/3/2006 2:48:07 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 8/3/2006 12:32:19 PM
Author: Lorelei

... we tend to have our own sweet spots here...

I don't know about you, but I think we've been dissed. Do you think we've been dissed?

Ira you misunderstand. When I mentioned about the sweet spots I meant that many here DO have their own ideas of their preferred ranges, myself included, such as not going below a certain depth, table size, crown and pav angle etc etc. I also meant that PSers can be extremely picky in as much that we see fantastically cut diamonds here every day and may not be so keen on one which is very well cut as a pose to a superideal and is far better cut than many of the diamonds you see.

So I am not 'dissing' anyone - as you chose to put it, just trying to help the OP. I am surprised quite frankly that you took my post that way and asking the other members opinions as to whether I was trying to 'diss' anyone. How would you feel if someone did that to one of your posts?

Apologies for the above statements Romanthony, lets get back to doing what we are supposed to do, helping you with your diamond!

 

[Regular Guy]

Lorelei,

Well...I was semi trying to make a funny, but that humor is sort of squeezed out now.

Also, re helping Romanthony, that direction has moved on a bit, and we have not.

While we're not moving forward...just a couple of things, including the legal idea that not being aware of the law is not an out for being held responsible for it.

First of all, it's really about your original (and continued) use of the word "we," rather than something like: "many of us..."

You sort of tried to fix that in your last post, but just went back to we, which has the effect of excluding "me," thus the idea of being "dissed." See below:

Date: 8/4/2006 3:13:44 AM
Author: Lorelei
Ira you misunderstand. When I mentioned about the sweet spots I meant that many here DO have their own ideas of their preferred ranges, myself included, such as not going below a certain depth, table size, crown and pav angle etc etc. I also meant that PSers can be extremely picky in as much that we see fantastically cut diamonds here every day and may not be so keen on one which is very well cut as a pose to a superideal and is far better cut than many of the diamonds you see.

Second of all...although I may not be his best exponent, unless I am actually wrong, and perhaps should be corrected, I think that at least many people here who claim to have "sweet spots," do so by a function more of prejudice, rather than knowledge. This is not to say that additional information cannot help to confirm a shoppers guesstimate, such as pictures. Consistent with this, it is clear that the HCA is a screening tool, yes, and only goes so far. But, my point is that to have specific preferences of certain angles within those already screened within the HCA may more be based on a misunderstanding than prejudice. I actually thought that was the point Romanthony might have been making, and that I was supporting.

This recent post by Garry may or may not be helpful, and is draw from this thread:

"Dave (and others) do you see that it is possible for diamonds to look good so long as the crown and pavilion angles are withing the laws of nature for peak performance?"

Anyway, I suppose I felt excluded, causing my phrase of being dissed.

Also, I thought there might be an opportunity for a review of what I understood to be some basics. Maybe this opportunity remains...(as for example, where you say above: "the main thing IMO is the medium girdle which I wouldn't personally choose"...but why on earth not?).

 

[JulieN]

Date: 8/3/2006 1:02:33 PM
Author: romanthony
Thanks again for your comments.
Bearing in mind that I favour fire to brilliance, what proportions should I be looking for then?

So, I found you some FICs. CA>=35.5, PA
But I had to go kind of far to find them (.70 cts.) .70 ct is about 5.7mm, and .55 cts is 5.3mm: only slightly noticeable, so I hope you don't mind.

Don't worry about the GIA cut grade being "very good" on some of them. 40.5/6 PA is the cutoff for GIA ex grade, but you need the shallower PA to get the "IC" in FIC.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=896851
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=896867
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=936546
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=898656

The G has the smallest table and the longest LGF. Once it gets to minor facets, it's esoteric

so you might want to make a thread with "FIC" and "LGF" in the title to get the attention of the cut geeks.

 

[Regular Guy]

Note to Julie: Nice work!

Note to Lorelei: Sorry for any misunderstandings vis-a-vis what is probably misunderstood as to the intensity of any of my words...

because they are intended to sent with a cool breeze that might even put you to sleep

. Overall, no bad feelings are intended.

But instead, and actually, real ideas were sneakily inserted in my posts to you, with the invitation to be discussed, which you might consider (i.e., use of we, effects of same, recognizing differences of opinion, exploring basis for differences of opinion and their validity, and such). Then again, maybe this brings us back to nowhere...

Simple thought...thanks for taking the time to post. Any response with a positive intention (as this one is intended to have) is welcome.

Note to Admin: Thanks for your efforts in all. But consider putting back the sortable columns to crown and pavilion in the search by cut, so she doesn't have to work so hard!

Cheers!