Help me choose between these two stones

[stkanev]

Hello All,

I am trying to choose one of these two stones. I am working with mark from ERD and he just sent these to me. What do you think, is one better that the other for a Simon G halo setting.

 

[stkanev]

Sorry, here is the second one attached.

 

[Lorelei]

The links don''t work for me?

 

[stkanev]

I have pdf GIA reports, I attached them, I am not sure why you are not seeing them. What ifnormation do you need from the reports other than the below:

1) carat 1.04
color H
clarity SI1
cut Excellent
polish and symetry Very Good
measurements 6.52x5.57x4.02 mm
fluorecense None

2) carat 1.03
color H
clarity SI1
cut Excellent
polish and symetry Very Good
measurements 6.46x6.49x4.01 mm
fluorecense None

I am also looking at this one from James Allen which is a lot cheaper, I guess because of the fluorecense, right

Item Number: 1220934
Shape: Round
Carat weight: 1.02
Cut: Ideal
Color: H
Clarity: VS2
Certificate: GIA

Depth: 62.7%
Table: 57.0%
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Girdle: Medium to thick, faceted
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Strong
Measurements: 6.41*6.34*4.00

I will try to photoshop the charts from the GIA reports and post later, but what else should I be looking at.

 

[Lorelei]

I don''t know why, I get '' page not found...'' very odd.

The info I need is -

depth%
table%
crown and pavilion angles
girdle thickness

For each diamond please. Also you might want to check the grading report for the James Allen diamond, I have noticed today a few times that the depth on the diamond page is 62.7% and table 57% so I don''t know if that is a glitch or not.

 

[stkanev]

1) 1.04 ct

depth% 61.4
table% 57
crown and pavilion angles 14 and 44
girdle thickness medium-slightly thick


2) 1.03 ct

depth% 61.9
table% 56
crown and pavilion angles 15 and 43
girdle thickness think - medium

I am getting the info on the jamesallen one.

Thanks

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 3/30/2009 5:45:07 PM
Author: stkanev
1) 1.04 ct

depth% 61.4
table% 57
crown and pavilion angles 14 and 44
girdle thickness medium-slightly thick

2) 1.03 ct

depth% 61.9
table% 56
crown and pavilion angles 15 and 43
girdle thickness think - medium

I am getting the info on the jamesallen one.
Thanks

Prefer the second stone. But the number you gave is not angles but % depth. Best to use angles for the HCA.

EDT:
You uploaded files probably didn't work because the name is too common, and there is a previous file under the same name, try some random numbers and upload it again if you want to or just give us the GIA report numbers.

 

[stkanev]

The GIA report numbers are 210500461584 and 2937221801. Please let me know what you think.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/30/2009 9:17:01 PM
Author: stkanev
The GIA report numbers are 210500461584 and 2937221801. Please let me know what you think.

Are these for the original 2 diamonds?

 

[stkanev]

Yes, these are the two original diamonds. Thanks.

 

[girlie-girl]

Which stone belongs to which grading report? We have to enter report number and carat weight for the search. I'm not finding a match. (Are you Lorelei?) Are the reports dated after January 1, 2000?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/31/2009 9:05:16 AM
Author: girlie-girl
Which stone belongs to which grading report? We have to enter report number and carat weight for the search. I''m not finding a match. (Are you Lorelei?) Are the reports dated after January 1, 2000?

No I''m not GG.....I don''t know what is going on there....Very strange.

 

[girlie-girl]

Date: 3/31/2009 9:07:36 AM
Author: Lorelei

No I''m not GG.....I don''t know what is going on there....Very strange.

Okay, at least I know I wasn''t doing something wrong. It''s early here yet. LOL

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/31/2009 9:10:15 AM
Author: girlie-girl

Date: 3/31/2009 9:07:36 AM
Author: Lorelei

No I''m not GG.....I don''t know what is going on there....Very strange.

Okay, at least I know I wasn''t doing something wrong. It''s early here yet. LOL

Hehehe! No you aren''t doing anything wrong, it isn''t accepting the numbers for some reason, maybe there is a typo somewhere * scratches head*

 

[stkanev]

vey strange. Here are the numbers again:

1.04 ct GIA # 193221801

1.03 ct GIA # 210500461684

They are scanned copies and very hard to read. I hope that these are the numbers. I have tried attaching them again. Please let me know if the attachments work.

 

[stkanev]

report # 2

 

[stone-cold11]

Ok found it.

16860786, for the 1.04c stone. http://www2.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=16860786&weight=1.04

HCA = 3.9

2105599434, for the 1.03c stone. http://www2.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=2105599434&weight=1.03

HCA = 1.6

Definitely the 1.03c stone for me.


EDT:
Got them off from ERD website so unless they have 2 pair of similiar dimensioned stone, everything matches what OP gave for the stones except the report number. weird.

 

[stkanev]

Can you please explain why the 1.03 is better. I just want to know for my own education.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/31/2009 9:42:07 AM
Author: stkanev
Can you please explain why the 1.03 is better. I just want to know for my own education.

It has a better angle combo than the other, I don't like such a steep pavilion angle in a diamond regardless of the crown angle with the other one, I would eliminate this diamond from consideration quite honestly. Ideally I would like an idealscope or ASET image for the 1.03 but from the info we have it is by far the better choice.

 

[stkanev]

The price quote I got for the second diamond (1.03 ct) is $4,260. Do you think that is a fair price and will this diamond make my girfriend happy or should i continue searching for a better quality stone.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/31/2009 9:48:42 AM
Author: stkanev
The price quote I got for the second diamond (1.03 ct) is $4,260. Do you think that is a fair price and will this diamond make my girfriend happy or should i continue searching for a better quality stone.

Mark is competitively priced, you could ask him if he could send you photos and an Idealscope image of the diamond, he might be able to arrange that and it would tell us more. The diamond looks promising but without images thats really all that can be known about it. As it is SI clarity, check it is eyeclean to your standards by asking Mark to inspect it for you. I would definitely pass on the first diamond, without doubt you can do better than that one

. The pavilion is too steep in my opinion to get the best out of the diamond, go that steep and you can notice darkness or colour entrapment in the diamond in some circumstances, might not be a problem in this case but possible - undoubtedly you can do better than this.

 

[stone-cold11]

GIA's ex cut grade has a wide range which includes some proportions that results in light leakage, resulting in a less sparkly stone. Also they round their proportion numbers quite significantly, 0.5 for crown and 0.2 for the pavilion. Stone 1 is a maybe for the cut grade if the proportion are as stated but if the values are rounded down from the actual value, we will see significant leakage. Stone 2 scores well on the HCA and not near the edge where performance drops, so it is a safer bet. Still it is best to see the IS/ASET images of both stones to confirm.

EDT:
Pricewise, it is a good price.

 

[stkanev]

Thank you. I will ask him. He just called me this morning to tell me he will send me some slightly under 1 ct diamonds to look at that will save some money. I will post these too, if you don''t mind. He is such a nice guy, I completely trust him but it''s always better to get some reassurance.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/31/2009 9:53:47 AM
Author: stkanev
Thank you. I will ask him. He just called me this morning to tell me he will send me some slightly under 1 ct diamonds to look at that will save some money. I will post these too, if you don''t mind. He is such a nice guy, I completely trust him but it''s always better to get some reassurance.

Thats great, post the new ones when you have them! Mark is extremely worthy of your trust and can supply some worthy contenders as with the second diamond above, again I would definitely eliminate the other one.

 

[stkanev]

Hello again.

Mark just called me back with the GIA report information for a 0.96 ct H color diamond. Please let me know what you think. He will send me ideal scope images of the diamonds tomorrow.

GIA # 2107215454

Round Brilliant
Measurements: 6.27 - 6.32 x 3.93 mm

Carat Weight: 0.96 carat
Color Grade: H
Clarity Grade: SI1
Cut Grade: Excellent
Proportions:
Depth: 62.4%
Table: 58%
Crown Angle: 35.5°
Crown Height: 15.0%
Pavilion Angle: 41.0°
Pavilion Depth: 43.5%
Star length: 55%
Lower Half: 75%
Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick
Culet: None
Finish:
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: None

Thank you

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/31/2009 3:59:53 PM
Author: stkanev


Hello again.

Mark just called me back with the GIA report information for a 0.96 ct H color diamond. Please let me know what you think. He will send me ideal scope images of the diamonds tomorrow.

GIA # 2107215454

Round Brilliant
Measurements: 6.27 - 6.32 x 3.93 mm

Carat Weight: 0.96 carat
Color Grade: H
Clarity Grade: SI1
Cut Grade: Excellent


Proportions:
Depth: 62.4%
Table: 58%
Crown Angle: 35.5°
Crown Height: 15.0%
Pavilion Angle: 41.0°
Pavilion Depth: 43.5%
Star length: 55%
Lower Half: 75%
Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick
Culet: None


Finish:
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: None

Thank you

This one is what we call a steep deep with the angle ranges, it is possible that it could show light leakage. So I prefer the 1.03 diamond listed to this one.

 

[stkanev]

Thank you. So you would choose between the 1.03 and the 0.96, and eliminate the 1.04? Do you honestly believe that I can do better than that for the same price. Should I ask him to look more. I have an appointment to see the diamonds in person on Friday and I am ready to buy, what should I be looking at to help me make a decidion. The difference in price will be $500. Not that I want to be cheap but I do not want to spend money on something my girlfriend will not notice. My other concern is the color. The setting that i am getting is a gorgeous antique halo with diamonds all around the center stone, a "braid"looking band with diamonds all around it too, it''s very unique. I was actually an oval ruby ring that she fell in love with and I am having it made for a round diamond, I think she will be surprised. I am nervous that the H might look a little yellow next to the other diamonds. What do you think.

 

[Lorelei]

Definitely eliminate the 1.04, the .96 does not have the best angle combo as above so I would be very cautious with that one and not consider it without an Idealscope or ASET image - but I would be inclined to move on from this one anyway as it is likely to leak light and not perform well.

The 1.03 is the best of the bunch. I would ask Mark to find you some AGS0 cut grade diamonds and some GIA Excellent which don't fall into steep deep angle ranges, he might know what you mean by this. As to the H colour, it is recommended to keep the centre and any side/ accent diamonds within 2 colour grades, but Mark will be able to advise you further. Also ask him if he has an Idealscope you can use or ASET scope, this will help you evaluate your selections. More info on IS here.

https://www.pricescope.com/idealscope_indx.asp

Apart from that, compare the diamonds away from any bright lighting and see if you can compare them in plain daylight, this will give you a better idea of how the diamonds would look when being worn. You can also look at some under a desk in subdued lighting, see which diamonds ' go dead' when you do this and which ones don't.

 

[stkanev]

Hello All,

I finally got the idealscope images. Please let me know what you think.

 

[stkanev]

This one is the 0.96 one