Help me understand what I''m looking at Part II - 3.57 ct round

[Dee*Jay]

OK, so I just viewed this AGS certed stone in person:

3.575 ct
H SI2
9.73 X 9.77 X 6.06
62.2% depth
56.2% table
15.7% crown height
35.5 crown angle
42.6% pavillion depth
40.5 pavillion angle
Girdle - thin to slightly thick, faceted
Culet - pointed
EX polish
EX symmetry
Fluor. Negligible

This one gets a 1B score on the DIY grader, and a .7 on the HCA. This stone was less pleasing to me (despite the fact that it was bigger and cheaper--LOL!) than the one I saw yesterday. Maybe it was a function of the environment and different lighting, or maybe I''m just not good at this...

Would the size difference between 9.73 X 9.77 and 9.65 X 9.70 be very apparent to the naked eye? (I guess the larger question is at what mm size does it become apparent that one stone is larger than another?)

Can you please tell me if this stone is better than the one I saw yesterday (which also scored a 1B and got a .6 on the HCA)? Here are the specs for that one so you don''t have to dig up the other thread:

3.37 ct
GIA certed
H color
SI1
9.65 X 9.70 X 5.91
VG cut grade
61.1% depth
56% table
35 crown angle
15.5% crown height
40.4 pavillion angle
42.5% pavillion depth
55% star length
85% lower half
girdle thin to medium, faceted
culet none
EX polish
EX symmetry
Fluor. none

I promise you all that SOME DAY I will get (1) get a new diamond and/or (2) learn enough that I can evaluate stones on my own, and I won''t ask you to do this any more!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Dee Jay, I''m not qualified to answer your question, but I don''t think you can see much difference in those two sizes. Have you looked at that SI2 very closely? I honestly would rather have a slightly smaller stone with higher clarity. I''d be afraid I could see the inclusions in a 3 ct. SI2.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Diamondseeker, I *thought* I could see something in the stone but I had to tilt it in exactly the right way. I couldn''t see anything with my naked eye on the SI1 yesterday.

 

[cutey TT]

My 0.02... I would lean more heavily toward the first stone you saw (3.37 ct) just because the larger stone seems to be losing some of its carat weight in the depth and girdle. Also, if the SI1 looked really eye-clean, then my personal preference is the higher clarity.

For the difference in carat weight, the measurements don''t really reflect it as much... We''re talking about an average diameter of 9.675 mm versus 9.75 mm, and in stones this large, you probably wouldn''t notice that much of a difference.

Also, you mentioned that the first stone was more visually pleasing to you...and that to me, says a lot.

Is your jeweler going to be calling in more stones for you to look at?

 

[Mara]

from the numbers i like the first stone you saw (smaller one) better...the 2nd one is too deep and also i don't like the crown or pav angles as listed with the table/depth, or the girdle.

the first stone has a shallower pav angle but it seems like the crown angle corresponds well, the table and depth are nice...i know there is alot of controversy on the whole 40.4-40.5 pav angle thing but alj and i saw a few with cherry #'s in houston and we loved them, so i think it depends on the stone. if that was an entirely virtual stone you couldn't see before buying, i'd be more wary but since you did see it and loved it, and thought it looked better than stone #2, that says alot to me.

i'd look at the first stone in alot of various types of lighting, also bring it up close to your head and see if you see any darkness in the stone at that point when it's closer to your eye than farther away. can you see an idealscope image to determine light return and leakage?

lastly, when you are in the 9mm range, something like .10mm will not be visually different to you ... and if the smaller stone is better cut then i'd venture to say that it would look just as big as the other stone because of the extra light return the better cut brings.

ETA that the one thing i wanted to say too was that there has been discussion on here about too low of an HCA score not being good either. some experts have said that HCA scores under ~0.8 can start to lose a bit of contrast in the stone. maybe this is a function of the lower pav angles with the other specs, but the 0.6 and 0.7 may be borderline on this, maybe an expert can chime in.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Thanks for the replies. I have seen two other stones, neither of which I liked and neither of which scored well on the Atlas DIY grading or the HCA, so maybe I''m starting to figure this out (at least I hope so!).

Cutey, There is a 3.59 I SI2 coming in for me to look at tomorrow or Friday, and Bill Pearlman e-mailed me today about two potential stones, so I''m making forward progress.

Mara, I''m glad you pointed out that some nice stones scoring lower on the HCA because I was starting to think maybe I was crazy (or just stupid!) for not minding the look of the 3.37 at an HCA of .6.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/21/2006 12:49:17 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Have you looked at that SI2 very closely? I honestly would rather have a slightly smaller stone with higher clarity. I''d be afraid I could see the inclusions in a 3 ct. SI2.

I can respect that''s your preference, but I''ll say it again: there are eyeclean SI2 stones - even in that size range. Solange bought a 4 ct. SI2 stone from WF that''s eyclean.

I think your issue with SI2 is more of a mental issue than anything, and that''s fine......but others may do just fine with the SI2. I own three SI2 stones (although not that large), and I don''t have trouble with them. I''ve learned that it''s smart to focus less on the label "SI2" and more on "is it eyeclean?"

 

[Dee*Jay]

Al, I agree with you. My clarity criteria is "eye clean" and I don't care if it's an SI1 or 2. I would rather have an SI2 because I would then either (a) save $$$ or (b) get a bigger (or better color) stone for the same price. And I have seen some eye clean 3 ct SI2 in the course of my little upgrade adventure.

When I look at any diamond I won't look at the inclusion plot or even use a loupe until I've spent enough time looking at it with only my eyes to see what I can really see because for me it does become somewhat mental. "OK, I know that thing is *right here* so let me just scrutinize the hell out of this stone until I find it and then it can bug me like it should."

 

[dbgaap]

I have seen SI2''s that look better than SI1''s.
It''s all about the placement of the inclusion and the type of inclusion.

There are so many types of inclusions and some are ugly!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/21/2006 6:20:45 PM
Author: Dee*Jay

When I look at any diamond I won''t look at the inclusion plot or even use a loupe until I''ve spent enough time looking at it with only my eyes to see what I can really see because for me it does become somewhat mental. ''OK, I know that thing is *right here* so let me just scrutinize the hell out of this stone until I find it and then it can bug me like it should.''

DJ
yep....i think that is the right way to look at stones.

btw; i think the 3.37ct will have skinny arrows b/c of the 85% Lower half.

 

[Demelza]

I definitely don''t think you''ll notice the size difference between those 2 stones. If your eye liked the first one better, that''s the most important criteria. I can''t comment too much on the numbers except to say that I too like the depth better on the first one you saw and the slightly lower crown angle. I can''t wait to see what you end up with!!!!

 

[Dee*Jay]

DF, is "skinny arrows" bad? Or it just is what it is?

And Dem, I too am interested to see what I end up with! Bill Pearlman (who is a SAINT, by the way!) mentioned two stones to me the other day that I am most anxious to see, so the search goes on...

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/22/2006 12:34:32 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
DF, is ''skinny arrows'' bad? Or it just is what it is?

And Dem, I too am interested to see what I end up with! Bill Pearlman (who is a SAINT, by the way!) mentioned two stones to me the other day that I am most anxious to see, so the search goes on...

DJ
i don''t know,but if look at top cut stones,most would have 75-80% Lower half .fatter arrows = bigger flash?