Help me sleep at night! Comparing (2) G.O.G. H&A [pics]

[David0722]

I'm on the fence between these two stones at Good Old Gold. Jonathan has been VERY patient meeting with me several times with zero sales pressure. I saw both under a 10x loupe and side-by-side under a high power microscope, strangely the 1.36 SI2 has far fewer inclusions than the 1.46 SI1 - I'm indifferent on the clarity. I'm mostly attracted to the 1.36 because it's $2,600 cheaper and the D color is a plus. The only things making me want the 1.46 is A) the size, it's 0.185mm larger in diameter, and B) it scored a 9.8 on iSee2 where the 1.36 only scored a 9.1 (mostly due to less symmetry). I know, the 0.185 is not a huge difference in diameter, but I can notice a difference, albeit a slight one. The stone will be mounted in a platinum cathedral setting with princess stones channel set in a (thin) 2.75mm ring. Her finger is a small 4.0.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2281/ http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2089/
Comments and opinions are welcomed and greatly appreciated!

(1.36 (1.463)
D, SI2 G, SI1

(1.36 (1.463)

 

[Cehrabehra]

there is something in the symmetry off to me in both of those stones in all 3 pictures... it lists the sym as ideal though... I don''t understand...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

i prefer the one on the left that is painted on one side (H&A''s wont show that) to the one on the right that is slightly dug out or cheated ? (I suspect?)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Do you have the pages from GOG saved that you can give us the links? I want to see the other information..especially the magnified images and some of the other things. I just saw the H VVS2 at 1.37 cts. and it is in between the size of those two, and it is a few hundred dollars more than the 1.46. But inclusions are not an issue with it at all.

Cehra, those pictures can be deceiving because the stone can be turned a little, lighting has an effect, camera angle, etc. But the second one does look better just in those images.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 7/26/2006 10:42:50 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
i prefer the one on the left that is painted on one side (H&A''s wont show that) to the one on the right that is slightly dug out or cheated ? (I suspect?)

Garry, you are very bad.

David, don''t even clutter your brain to go there.

 

[DiamondExpert]

David - DUDE!... it''s now time to back off the numbers!! Either one will be a great selection. Just put ''em side by side and choose the one you like best!!!

...then it''s Miller (actually Martini) time!! ENJOY!!...shoosh away the angst!

Good luck!

 

[mrssalvo]

I''m a size gal so I''d go for the bigger one

. Both are going to be beautiful, which do your eyes prefer?

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/26/2006 10:49:13 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Do you have the pages from GOG saved that you can give us the links? I want to see the other information..especially the magnified images and some of the other things. I just saw the H VVS2 at 1.37 cts. and it is in between the size of those two, and it is a few hundred dollars more than the 1.46. But inclusions are not an issue with it at all.

Cehra, those pictures can be deceiving because the stone can be turned a little, lighting has an effect, camera angle, etc. But the second one does look better just in those images.

I think I like #1 better... in the second stone between 2-3 o''clock in the first picture and at about 11 o''clock in the third picture... it just looks funky - but maybe that''s what garry was talking about? I don''t know about digging and painting much other than that there may or may not be controversy about them lol

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/26/2006 10:42:50 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
i prefer the one on the left that is painted on one side (H&A's wont show that) to the one on the right that is slightly dug out or cheated ? (I suspect?)

You been drinking again?
They are both slightly tilted in the DX photos but I dont see any painting or digging.
Also if you notice the 1.46 has very long star facets so what your seeing is the resulting sharp angle of the girdle facets.
I like em that way.

 

[strmrdr]

money no object the 1.46 would be my pick.
The other one wins bling for the buck between them however.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

David...did you go to sleep?

If the inclusions are irrelevant, then of course I''d choose the 2nd one. But I''d like to see the links if you have them!

 

[David0722]

Date: 7/26/2006 11:40:40 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
David...did you go to sleep?

If the inclusions are irrelevant, then of course I'd choose the 2nd one. But I'd like to see the links if you have them!

Hey DS! Sorry 'bout that, additional reports can be found here:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2281/
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2089/

I'm surprised you jumped on the 1.46 simply because I said the inclusions are irrelevant - it's still $2,600 more! I merely said that because after looking at both stones, my decision won't be based on clarity.

I'm extremely grateful for the comments thus far, keep 'em coming!
BTW, I can't wait to help out friends of mine when they're ready to diamond shop - I've learned so much!

 

[dhog]

Date: 7/26/2006 10:42:50 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
i prefer the one on the left that is painted on one side (H&A''s wont show that) to the one on the right that is slightly dug out or cheated ? (I suspect?)

I AGREE

also alot of twist but I am partial to painted stones

 

[David0722]

Date: 7/27/2006 12:07:22 AM
Author: dhog

Date: 7/26/2006 10:42:50 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
i prefer the one on the left that is painted on one side (H&A''s wont show that) to the one on the right that is slightly dug out or cheated ? (I suspect?)

I AGREE

also alot of twist but I am partial to painted stones

What is painting?

 

[mrssalvo]

choose the stone that looks better to your eyes or fits better into your budget. both are gorgeous and will be winners, just go with what you are comfortable with.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/27/2006 12:09:35 AM
Author: David0722

Date: 7/27/2006 12:07:22 AM

Author: dhog

Date: 7/26/2006 10:42:50 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

i prefer the one on the left that is painted on one side (H&A''s wont show that) to the one on the right that is slightly dug out or cheated ? (I suspect?)

I AGREE


also alot of twist but I am partial to painted stones

What is painting?

A different way of cutting the facets of a diamond that may or may not effect face up appearance depending on how much and is sometimes applied for the affect it has on the face up apearance usualy to make up for a low lgf% to bring the contrast back into the proper balance.
Its a personal choice if someone will like the effect or not.
I prefere no painting and longer lgf% myself.

A painted diamond will show no contrast leakage (small white dots and Vs) on a DX or IS image.

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 7/27/2006 12:15:52 AM
Author: mrssalvo
choose the stone that looks better to your eyes or fits better into your budget. both are gorgeous and will be winners, just go with what you are comfortable with.

Ditto, they are both great stones. Can''t loose with either one. Trust your eyes, and what is comfortable on your wallet. Good luck!!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 7/26/2006 11:52:54 PM
Author: David0722

Date: 7/26/2006 11:40:40 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
David...did you go to sleep?

If the inclusions are irrelevant, then of course I''d choose the 2nd one. But I''d like to see the links if you have them!

Hey DS! Sorry ''bout that, additional reports can be found here:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2281/
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2089/

I''m surprised you jumped on the 1.46 simply because I said the inclusions are irrelevant - it''s still $2,600 more! I merely said that because after looking at both stones, my decision won''t be based on clarity.

I''m extremely grateful for the comments thus far, keep ''em coming!
BTW, I can''t wait to help out friends of mine when they''re ready to diamond shop - I''ve learned so much!

I''m sorry, David. I didn''t mean that you said the inclusions were irrelevant. I just meant that since I couldn''t see them at all, I would have to disregard them in stating an opinion at this point! But now that you have the links, I''ll take a look. I''m picky about inclusions, so it would influence my decision. Just about 2 weeks ago I was deciding between two GOG stones as well, a 1.37 and a 1.63, and the price difference was $3000. We ended up deciding on the larger stone, but we have been married a long time and this is for an anniversary. Only you know what is comfortable for your budget.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well, the 1.46 has very excellent numbers (very little variation in the crown or pavilion angles), although either would be great! I can''t tell enough about the inclusions to let that be a factor. You''ve seen them and if they are both totally eye clean, then that''s good. You may realize that there is a big price jump at 1.5 cts., so you are getting an almost 1.5 ct. stone for much less money when you buy a 1.46. That''s the appeal of that one. I looked for months for a stone that size with my other parameters and never really found one. Good luck and let us know what you decide!

 

[Beacon]

Question regarding painting/ digging out. If the stone was painted or dug out wouldn''t that affect the cut grade strongly? Wouldn''t there be some sort of a comment like: "cut grade is based on brillianteering of the half facets". I don''t know about AGSL but GIA does this I think.

So wouldn''t that be disclosed to this buyer via the reports?

 

[Mara]

GIA allows some light painting of the stones without dinging the cut grade but where that 'fine line' is drawn who really knows. My stone is a VG GIA cut grade and it's only lightly painted really...but it's one of the most beautiful stones I have seen thus far.

I love painted stones but I wouldn't toss a classic style out of bed either if the IS image was hot. Both of those look very nice.

Isn't it kind of odd that only one side of the left stone would be painted???

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 7/27/2006 12:09:35 AM
Author: David0722

Date: 7/27/2006 12:07:22 AM

Author: dhog

Date: 7/26/2006 10:42:50 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

i prefer the one on the left that is painted on one side (H&A's wont show that) to the one on the right that is slightly dug out or cheated ? (I suspect?)

I AGREE


also alot of twist but I am partial to painted stones

What is painting?

Garry was making a joke. Don't take it too seriously.

Chose what speaks to you, not on the numbers alone.

 

[Ellen]

They''re both great, but I personally like the 1.46 better, and not for the size.

But you have had the luxory of seeing them, which we have not. So, as suggested earlier, I would agree to go with the one that speaks to you!

 

[Carlotta]

Bsased on the helium scan, the stone on the left is not painted.....

 

[David0722]

This is all great information everyone, thank you so much for your help so far!

At this point, I think I''m leaning towards the 1.36 because I think I might feel guilty for spending the extra $2,600. Any other comments regarding the scans/reports/images found on GOG''s website?

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2281/
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2089/

PS: For those wondering, I made it to sleep at 2:30am last night - I''m getting better!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Both stones are great, David. And if you want to upgrade her stone to a larger one for a 10th anniversary or something, you can do that easily at GOG. That''s the great thing about buying from a vendor with a lifetime upgrade policy. A 1.36 is larger than the average engagement diamond for sure! So you can''t go wrong with that!

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 7/27/2006 9:56:44 AM
Author: David0722


At this point, I think I''m leaning towards the 1.36 because I think I might feel guilty for spending the extra $2,600. ]

I think this is will be wonderful and will be a great size for a size 4.

 

[Ellen]

I agree with ds and Mrs.S!

 

[fire&ice]

David - regarding the painting - it''s an inside joke - pay no mind to the man behind the curtain.

Very bad Aussie

That said - honestly - just pick one. Get the one that speaks to you. Look at various lighting & if you can see how is will look in the setting.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 7/27/2006 1:27:19 AM
Author: Beacon
Question regarding painting/ digging out. If the stone was painted or dug out wouldn''t that affect the cut grade strongly? Wouldn''t there be some sort of a comment like: ''cut grade is based on brillianteering of the half facets''. I don''t know about AGSL but GIA does this I think.

So wouldn''t that be disclosed to this buyer via the reports?

Good morn.

Excellent question beacon and since Dave asked about it as well let me clarify between these 2 stones. Questions are good and are to be encouraged. I don''t think Garry was joking becuase a very faint degree of painting does exist in the 1.368ct. which can be seen in our photography. There is no digging in the 1.46ct whatsoever.

Neither stone is painted or dug out to any degree that would take a knock in either GIA or AGS systems.

In fact the painting is so faint on the 1.368ct that the Helium Scanner doesn''t even pick it up and it is very sensitive to reporting the features of girdle cutting.

GIA and AGS are very much on the same page regarding digging and the degree to which they''d take knocks in either system.

My own personal grading of digging is a little tighter than both labs allow.

Where the labs differ is in their cut grade regarding painting. GIA penalizes painting at a to a greater degree based on their observation research while AGS does penalize painting but allows a greater tolerance for it. So there are stones that would make AGS Ideal grade which wouldn''t make GIA''s Ex grade based on this factor alone. I''ve spent roughly the last year researching these issues so I am very familiar with these styles of girdle cutting and the tolerances that will or will not make either labs top grade. We disclose this information based on our experience and research into these matters regardless of which Report is accompanied with the diamond. So if a diamond is an AGS graded stone (as in the case of these 2 diamonds) yet has enough painting to disqualify it from being a GIA Ex we either reject the stone or will list it on our site with the appropriate estimated GIA grade. You''ll note asterisks next to our GIA and AGS cut grades on each stone with a disclaimer stating this.

So on a GIA Report it would indeed say "cut grade is based on brillianteering of the half facets". Since AGS allows for a greater degree of painting, if we see this feature and know it would not make GIA''s Ex grade we disclose this information to our clients up front. Since neither of the stones Dave is looking at would take the hit, I saw no need to go into detail about this with him. If one stone was I most certainly would have let him know and educate him further on the subject. There are brief yet detailed articles I have written on the subject which are published on our site accompanied with graphics to demonstrate the phenomena plus during the course of the last 6 months here you''ll find some very interesting debates regarding the labs decisions (particularly GIA''s) for not allowing the tolerances they are for their top grade.

Hope that helps.