Help! Newbie needs advice on diamond :-)

[Upside Down Man]

Hey everyone. This is my very first post! I am (surprise, surprise) a brand-spankin new shopper and am planning on buying a ring for my long term girlfriend.

I''ve done the basic reading on the 4 C''s and all that good stuff, and read a lot of information on the PriceScope site, but I know that I am very far from being an expert on these things.

I think I found a stone that I like, but want to get your opinion on it (the real experts!)

GIA cert
1.40 ct
Color: G
Clarity: VS1
Depth: 62.0%
Table: 55%
Crown: 35.0°
Pav: 40.8°
Grd: thin to medium (faceted)
Pol: ex
Sym: ex
Flr: none
Diameter: 7.16-7.22x4.46

I know a lot of people tend to go down to the SI1 range if you can get an eye-clean stone. That''s not a bad idea at all. But I think at the end of the day I may just be more comfortable with something I know will be eye-clean for sure.

In any case, is the above stone a good one? What can I consider a "good price" on it (if I should buy it at all)? I don''t want to tell you what the dealer is asking, because I don''t want to bias your opinions. Sorry!

Thanks for all your help.

 

[Ellen]

Hi UDM,

Sounds like you could have a nice diamond here. I happen to own a 1.40 G VS1 lol. Yes, with this clarity there are no worries, but you really could go down at least to VS2 with NO worries. And there are many SI1''s that are eye clean (even SI2), the vendor can let you know. I didn''t go after that clarity, it just came with the rest of the stats I wanted.

As far as price, it could be anywhere from around 10,600. - 13,600. Just depends on how well cut, and if it is a branded stone.

If you are set on this one, and don''t want to search further, can the vendor get you an Ideal Scope image?

 

[Upside Down Man]

Hi Ellen,

Thanks so much for replying! I don''t know if the vendor can get me the ImageScope pics but I can always try to find out.

Does anyone else have anny opinions? I''m too nervous to make such a big purchase on my own

 

[Upside Down Man]

lol I mean "Ideal Scope".

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/18/2006 5:07:38 PM
Author: Upside Down Man
Hi Ellen,

Thanks so much for replying! I don''t know if the vendor can get me the ImageScope pics but I can always try to find out.

Does anyone else have anny opinions? I''m too nervous to make such a big purchase on my own

Definitely ask if they can, it will help a lot!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well, here''s one very close, but the crown angle is little better. Guess it depends on the price difference. But the extra info always means a lot to me.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond.php?d=1990&shape=1&ctMin=1.4&ctMax=1.5&clarity=48&color=8&resultsColumns=268435471&singleResult=1

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/18/2006 7:20:06 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Well, here''s one very close, but the crown angle is little better. Guess it depends on the price difference. But the extra info always means a lot to me.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond.php?d=1990&shape=1&ctMin=1.4&ctMax=1.5&clarity=48&color=8&resultsColumns=268435471&singleResult=1

I realize we may be splitting the hairs here, but I''d rather have the angles on the one he picked. Your crown angle may be more desirable in general, but not with a 41PA. I did the HCA just to see, and GOG''s got a 2.2 with only 1 ex. I''m not crazy about the BS on that stone either.

His stone gets 1.6 with 3 ex. We still need to see an IS though...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 10/18/2006 7:45:44 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/18/2006 7:20:06 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Well, here''s one very close, but the crown angle is little better. Guess it depends on the price difference. But the extra info always means a lot to me.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond.php?d=1990&shape=1&ctMin=1.4&ctMax=1.5&clarity=48&color=8&resultsColumns=268435471&singleResult=1

I realize we may be splitting the hairs here, but I''d rather have the angles on the one he picked. Your crown angle may be more desirable in general, but not with a 41PA. I did the HCA just to see, and GOG''s got a 2.2 with only 1 ex. I''m not crazy about the BS on that stone either.

His stone gets 1.6 with 3 ex. We still need to see an IS though...

Ellen, I didn''t look at that...the helium scan has the average at 40.98..not sure if that matters. But the pav angle variation on this stone is only .10!! It looks really well cut and has gorgeous H&A photos. But I imagine we are splitting hairs. We probably couldn''t tell the two stones apart! (assuming the other is a H&A?) I was just thinking about this diamond myself! Haha!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/18/2006 7:58:17 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Ellen, I didn''t look at that...the helium scan has the average at 40.98..not sure if that matters. But the pav angle variation on this stone is only .10!! It looks really well cut and has gorgeous H&A photos. But I imagine we are splitting hairs. We probably couldn''t tell the two stones apart! (assuming the other is a H&A?) I was just thinking about this diamond myself! Haha!

You already have a diamond.

And yes, it''s tightly cut, but imo that crown angle just isn''t the most complimentary....

 

[Upside Down Man]

The stone I am looking at is GIA cert though, and as I am reading on this site, GIA can round their crown and pavillion angles. So "my" stone could actually be (gasp) 40.9 pavilion angle and 35.2 crown angle and still be graded as it is above. That would give my stone a 2.4 with 4 VGs and no Excellents (I discovered the HCA

).

Here''s the thing, though. I can get my stone for (just a very small hair) under $10,000. The gorgeous stone diamondseeker2006 linked to would be priced $3000 more.

If the stone above is GIA "excellent grade" cut, and is (at the very worst) a 2.4 on the HCA, does that make it a good deal at (just under) $10,000? Or should I maybe regroup and think closer about diamondseeker2006''s suggestion?

(I promise I won''t buy it from under your nose if you really do want to buy it, DS2006. I''m not here to make enemies, I promise.)

 

[february2003bride]

Upside Down-

I like the stone you picked! Good choice!

 

[Rhino]

Just browsing a bit here and caught this thread. I've finally begun writing a much needed article on the HCA because of examples like this that consumers need to be deftly aware of.

The HCA is predicting that this diamond has leakage under the table visible in a reflector. Hence the score over 2.0. While this can be the case sometimes I would like to point out that ...

a. It is CLEARLY not the case in this instance (as evidenced by the provided reflector images) and
b. Even if it did the leakage would be undetectable to the human eyes.

The HCA has its strengths but this is a blatant weakness in its prediction and design, particularly how it corellates with human observation. Pavilion angles of 41 degrees when coupled with proper crown angles happen to be among the brightest diamonds in the world. That it would be "weeded out" because of a 41 degree pavilion angle is absurd.

Peace,

 

[Ellen]

Hey Jon!

First of all, I did admit we were splitting hairs here.

I never said anything against the reflector image, just the BS, which I DO happen to put some stock in. And I agree with your statement that a 41 PA when coupled with a complimentary CA can be a very bright, beautiful diamond. I happen to own a 34/41, that I bought from you.

So you''re saying a 34.8 CA w/41 PA is JUST as complimentary? I''m asking sincerely.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 10/18/2006 8:34:09 PM
Author: Rhino
Just browsing a bit here and caught this thread. I''ve finally begun writing a much needed article on the HCA because of examples like this that consumers need to be deftly aware of.

The HCA is predicting that this diamond has leakage under the table visible in a reflector. Hence the score over 2.0. While this can be the case sometimes I would like to point out that ...

a. It is CLEARLY not the case in this instance (as evidenced by the provided reflector images) and
b. Even if it did the leakage would be undetectable to the human eyes.

The HCA has its strengths but this is a blatant weakness in its prediction and design, particularly how it corellates with human observation. Pavilion angles of 41 degrees when coupled with proper crown angles happen to be among the brightest diamonds in the world. That it would be ''weeded out'' because of a 41 degree pavilion angle is absurd.

Peace,

Rhino as you know for more athan a year I realized that (after Sergey pointed it out) because we have 2 eyes this table leakage is not seen.

I am redoing the data for HCA - and it is likely that many stones that now score 2.5 will ldrop under 2.0 because of this effect.

There is one of the threads where I first discussed GIA''s inclusion of steep deeps where I showed this and other images accounting for steroscopic vision.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Ellen,

Date: 10/18/2006 9:08:22 PM
Author: Ellen

Hey Jon!

First of all, I did admit we were splitting hairs here.

I never said anything against the reflector image, just the BS, which I DO happen to put some stock in. And I agree with your statement that a 41 PA when coupled with a complimentary CA can be a very bright, beautiful diamond. I happen to own a 34/41, that I bought from you.

So you''re saying a 34.8 CA w/41 PA is JUST as complimentary? I''m asking sincerely.

My apologies if this didn''t come off as I intended. Yanno ... after I wrote that I realized it may be taken in the wrong light. I know you weren''t knocking it.

In answer to your question ... YES ... a pavilion angle of 41 degrees coupled with a 34.8 is just fine. In fact even if the crown angle was 35, that too is nothing that would be detectable with human vision.

What triggered my response was this. Here is a stone that was inspected live by myself (not just with all the technologies we employ but visually as well). On the techie/actual craftsmanship front ...

* Picture perfect H&A
* Picture perfect ASET
* One of the most precision cut diamonds on the face of the planet (as ds pointed out only .1 degree variance on the pavilion angles ... not to mention only .1 degree variance on the crown angles AND table ... super rare) and on a Helium Report gets Ex for symmetry when considering every single facet set including stars, upper halves and lower halves. Any Helium user knows this is not an easy task to accomplish.
* On an even geekier front the azimuth deviation from ideal on all the crown mains and all pavilion facets do not exceed .34 degrees.

This kind of precision in both slope and azimuth angles are among the rarest in the world and any gemologist worth his weight in salt knows what I''m talking about.

Botton line ... it is one of the rarest cut diamonds in the world with regards to both precision which can be demonstrated mathematically and optically ... yet the stone gets over a 2 on the HCA and would be quickly disqualified by the average layman consulting this tool.

I don''t post about it much here because I come here to help when I can, not to fight. But if you knew how many times I have to explain this to clients and potential clients ... I get tired and frustrated after so many times. Also when I see a consumer making a sole judgement on comparative HCA scores and the other stone they''re considering has zilch for information (and is more than likely a sloppily cut stone) yet gets a higher HCA score.

I don''t presume to predict a person''s personal preference and indeed it may be for another stone but to disqualify a stone like that 1.40ct because of an HCA of over 2 is as I said ... absurd. It''s doing an injustice to the consumer who is seeking to gain as much knowledge about his/her internet purchase as he can. Sorry for venting but these are my honest and sincere thoughts. Also it is not my intent for this to be taken personally by Garry or Leonid who endorse the HCA. I barely have the time to debate or discuss but the more I study diamond appearance and inspect stones with 41 degree paviloin angles and even a little over, issues are being made over intangibles that have absolutely no impact on diamond appearance. In fact that stone will outshine an HCA 0-2 that has painted halves upwards of 5 degrees or digging upwards of 2 degrees.

And ... yea... you''re stone kicks optical behind too with its 41 degree pavilion angle.

Interestingly Ellen ... we''re observing that diamonds with 41 degree pavilion angles and even slightly over AVOID head obstruction giving the pavilion mains a better and increased chance of LIGHTING UP. Imagine that.

I still want and need to inspect more of these types but this has been our finding so far.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 10/18/2006 10:07:04 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 10/18/2006 8:34:09 PM
Author: Rhino
Just browsing a bit here and caught this thread. I''ve finally begun writing a much needed article on the HCA because of examples like this that consumers need to be deftly aware of.

The HCA is predicting that this diamond has leakage under the table visible in a reflector. Hence the score over 2.0. While this can be the case sometimes I would like to point out that ...

a. It is CLEARLY not the case in this instance (as evidenced by the provided reflector images) and
b. Even if it did the leakage would be undetectable to the human eyes.

The HCA has its strengths but this is a blatant weakness in its prediction and design, particularly how it corellates with human observation. Pavilion angles of 41 degrees when coupled with proper crown angles happen to be among the brightest diamonds in the world. That it would be ''weeded out'' because of a 41 degree pavilion angle is absurd.

Peace,

Rhino as you know for more athan a year I realized that (after Sergey pointed it out) because we have 2 eyes this table leakage is not seen.

I am redoing the data for HCA - and it is likely that many stones that now score 2.5 will ldrop under 2.0 because of this effect.

There is one of the threads where I first discussed GIA''s inclusion of steep deeps where I showed this and other images accounting for steroscopic vision.

I know Garry and I appreicate the fact that you didn''t take my criticism personally. Thing is, there is no table leakage in that stone and it doesn''t address the countless folks consulting the tool now and during the time you''ve discovered this (as well as some regs here who will not even consider recommending a stone if its scores over a 2.0).

A thought you should consider when revising the HCA Garry.

You want to establish boundaries with it and those boundaries should be properly and appropriately defined. My personal counsel would be to break the boundaries into one of 2 criteria or perhaps both.

a. The critical exam.
b. The practical exam.

a. The critical exam IMO should cover intangibles ... ie things that can''t be seen with the eye yet can be observed on a critical level ... ie using the reflector as your base like you have done. On the critical front, its ok to penalize for light leakage on steep/deeps ... including GIA Ex steep/deeps for that matter. I''d rexamine the 41 degree pavilion angle bit. The example above is a good reason to since the HCA assumes precise optical symmetry. It doesn''t get any more precise than that. HOwever ... on this critical front you AT THE SAME TIME need to be critical towards shallow angled diamonds even if it goes against your personal preference.

b. On the practical front ... HCA scores that correllate with human observation. For example you and I know that a diamond with a 35 degree crown angle coupled with a 41.2 pavilion angle does produce slight leakage under the table (could take a hit in a critical exam which it will in all technologies) but on a practical front, this leakage (as you have demonstrated with Sergey''s graphic and GIA have noted in their observation testing) is not visible with human vision and are indeed bright beautiful diamonds.

What you must decide as the developer of the HCA is do you want your tool to correllate most with a critical exam or a practical exam. If I were developing the tool this would be the first question I would want answered and relfected in my HCA score. If there is a way to incorporate both ... all the better and would give you one up on the FacetWare which incorporates practical exam alone.

My .02c

Peace,

 

[kcoursolle]

Upsidedownman, I like the stone you picked out. I would ask for an idealscope picture as mentioned above just to make sure. Also, a picture is always nice. Besides that, I think the rest is hairsplitting.

 

[Ellen]

Hey Jon, thanks for answering my question. I shall file that away in my ever growing diamond knowledge folder.

I hesitate to say too much about the diamond in question, for a few reasons. I admitted I was splitting hairs. I think I''ll leave it at that.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well, gosh, makes me want to see that 1.40 G VS1 since that is exactly what I was looking for for months! But yes, I already have a great one...too many temptations around here!

Good Luck UDM!!! Please show us your diamond when you get one!

 

[Upside Down Man]

Date: 10/19/2006 8:12:39 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Well, gosh, makes me want to see that 1.40 G VS1 since that is exactly what I was looking for for months! But yes, I already have a great one...too many temptations around here!

Good Luck UDM!!! Please show us your diamond when you get one!

You got it! I''ll be sure to post a pic once I get one!