Help needed determining Which Diamond is Better?

[VOG1090]

Hi all

First post here.

I was hoping someone could please give me some advice on some diamonds I am looking at?

Diamond 1:

1.17 carat F VS1 Triple Excellent 6.70-6.73 x 4.19 mm Faint Flourescence

Depth 62.4%, Table 55%, Crown Angle 35.5%, Crown Height 16%, Pavilion Angle 40.6%, Pavilion Depth 43.0%, Star Length 50%, Lower Half 75%, Girdle Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted, 3.5%, Cutlet None.






Diamond 2:

1.10 Carat G VVS1 Triple Excellent 6.54-6.58 x 4.12 mm No Flourescence

Depth 62.7%, Table 56%, Crown Angle 36.5%, Crown Height 16%, Pavilion Angle 40.6%, Pavilion Depth 43.0%, Star Length 45%, Lower Half 80%, Girdle Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted, 3.5%, Cutlet None.





Diamond 3:

1.20 Carat F VVS2 Triple Excellent 6.76-6.80 x 4.23 mm Faint Flourescence

Depth 62.3%, Table 56%, Crown Angle 36.5%, Crown Height 16%, Pavilion Angle 40.6%, Pavilion Depth 42.5%, Star Length 50%, Lower Half 75%, Girdle Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted, 3.5%, Cutlet None.





Unfortunately, the jeweller doesn't have the ASET scope or the Ideal scope but does have hearts and arrows.

Though Diamond 1 has what I think is better proportions it doesn't seem to have as much symmetry nor as good contrast when looking at the 8 spokes in the centre than the other two, though the other two do seem a bit more "over-exposed." Furthermore, Diamond 1 is the cheaper of the two and wondering why this is? And why the picture looks more dull if better cur proportions?

I would like to ask why this would be so and do you think Diamond 1 is still the better of the three diamonds?

Thank you and kind regards

 

[lovedogs]

The first one is the best from the numbers. I think the first one looks less symmetrical in that screenshot because of when the picture was taken. Stone 1 is cheaper because of VS1 clarity whereas the others are VVS (which won't matter to the naked eye, but does affect the cost).

Did you run through the HCA for the first one? The 2nd one has a crown that is too steep at 36.5 and it's too deep (preferably 62.4 is the max).

Stone 3 also is too steep at 36.5.

I think stone 2 and 3 won't score well on the HCA and overall are more likely to have leakage.

 

[VOG1090]

Yea

HCA score of the first is 1.2 the others are 2.

Hopefully it is just the picture and it was the best screenshot of the virtual video I could get but even on their brief face view it didn't look all that symmetrical.

Is it possible to have pretty good proportions and HCA score but still look dull and have poor light return in real life?

 

[lovedogs]

Yea

HCA score of the first is 1.2 the others are 2.

Hopefully it is just the picture and it was the best screenshot of the virtual video I could get but even on their brief face view it didn't look all that symmetrical.

Is it possible to have pretty good proportions and HCA score but still look dull and have poor light return in real life?

Can you link us to the listing for the first stone?

 

[stonehunter20]

Yea

HCA score of the first is 1.2 the others are 2.

Hopefully it is just the picture and it was the best screenshot of the virtual video I could get but even on their brief face view it didn't look all that symmetrical.

Is it possible to have pretty good proportions and HCA score but still look dull and have poor light return in real life?

if i were you, i would just go for hca score 1.2. no brainer. but it's just me. main reason being hca score >2 indicates less than ideal light performance, which may result in stone looking smaller.

 

[VOG1090]

Hi guys

Yup I went with the first.

However my question still stands, can having an HCA of 1.2 and good cut proportions still make the arrows and facets look not quite as "super ideal cut" as would expect and so the diamond not as shiny as in the picture or when viewing it normally?

Thanks

 

[VOG1090]

Actually I looked at the GIA report 7356132270 and says "Clarity grade is based on clouds that are not shown". How much would that affect a VS1?

Heres the listing on the jewellers site if you want to look at the 360 video.

7356132270

A pretty diamond

www.simonalexander.com.au

Thanks

 

[lovedogs]

Actually I looked at the GIA report 7356132270 and says "Clarity grade is based on clouds that are not shown". How much would that affect a VS1?

Heres the listing on the jewellers site if you want to look at the 360 video.

7356132270

A pretty diamond

www.simonalexander.com.au

Thanks

In a VS1 I wouldnt worry. If I see that in an si1/si2 it's a huge issue but not in such a high clarity grade

 

[stonehunter20]

Actually I looked at the GIA report 7356132270 and says "Clarity grade is based on clouds that are not shown". How much would that affect a VS1?

Heres the listing on the jewellers site if you want to look at the 360 video.

7356132270

A pretty diamond

www.simonalexander.com.au

Thanks

hmmm, i remember reading this sentence on beyond4cs' site and please see the screenshot below. it would require a "case by case analysis". im no expert here btw. just sharing what i saw during my research.

 

[headlight]

The listing you posted is for a VS1, not an SI2 which is what that article is referring to.

 

[kb1gra]

Hi guys

Yup I went with the first.

However my question still stands, can having an HCA of 1.2 and good cut proportions still make the arrows and facets look not quite as "super ideal cut" as would expect and so the diamond not as shiny as in the picture or when viewing it normally?

Thanks

yes. the HCA is a rejection tool, but there is still a range of stones within the HCA parameters that would not, for example, make the grade for CBI or A Cut Above or Brian Gavin Signature/Black.

That doesn't mean they are dogs, though. PS tends to act like they are, but you are still talking the very very top of all the cut round diamonds in the world.

 

[VOG1090]

Yea I read that post on beyond4cs too. Which is semi why I got a bit worried.

Also someone mentioned that the fluorescence and hue could make the diamond not so great and dark and didn't recommend it. But Ive also heard that they don't make too much affect so am a bit confused.

Any thoughts?

All I really wanna know is if this is a good stone or not? I can't really find anything much better on the jewellers site going off proportions and the GIA reports in this sort of range and am not too keen on buying online, even if others talk it up.

Sorry if these are pretty noob question and thanks for your guys advice and input.

 

[stonehunter20]

Yea I read that post on beyond4cs too. Which is semi why I got a bit worried.

Also someone mentioned that the fluorescence and hue could make the diamond not so great and dark and didn't recommend it. But Ive also heard that they don't make too much affect so am a bit confused.

Any thoughts?

All I really wanna know is if this is a good stone or not? I can't really find anything much better on the jewellers site going off proportions and the GIA reports in this sort of range and am not too keen on buying online, even if others talk it up.

Sorry if these are pretty noob question and thanks for your guys advice and input.

if you want to be sure, you may try to ask for idealscope and aset pictures of the stone from your vendor. with the available info, there really isn't much further we can assess in regards to the performance of the stone. just my 2 cents here.

 

[lovedogs]

Yea I read that post on beyond4cs too. Which is semi why I got a bit worried.

Also someone mentioned that the fluorescence and hue could make the diamond not so great and dark and didn't recommend it. But Ive also heard that they don't make too much affect so am a bit confused.

Any thoughts?

All I really wanna know is if this is a good stone or not? I can't really find anything much better on the jewellers site going off proportions and the GIA reports in this sort of range and am not too keen on buying online, even if others talk it up.

Sorry if these are pretty noob question and thanks for your guys advice and input.

fluor is rarely an issue, so don't worry about that. And yours is "faint" so it won't make a difference.

 

[OoohShiny]

if i were you, i would just go for hca score 1.2. no brainer. but it's just me. main reason being hca score >2 indicates less than ideal light performance, which may result in stone looking smaller.

Don't forget that the HCA score of 2 is not a hard cut-off - Garry H himself has said he'd be comfortable with up to the mid-2s, but such stones require more analysis.