Help with these 2 H&As

[thor]

I'm looking at these 2 H&A's on GOG:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/0_86ct_f_vs2_h%26a.htm

0.868 F VS2 AGS Ideal/Ideal/Ideal Hearts and Arrows
$4378
Table: 57%
Depth: 62%
Pav. angle: 40.9
crown angle: 34.3
Culet: 1.2%
HCA 1.5 E (E/E/VG/VG)



http://www.goodoldgold.com/0_95ct_gvs2_h%26a.htm

0.958 G VS2 AGS Ideal/Ideal/Ideal Hearts and Arrows
$5981
AGS specs:
Table: 55%
Depth: 62%
Pav. angle: 41.0
Crown angle: 34.8
HCA: 2.1 VG (E/VG/VG/VG)

Sarin specs:
Table: 55.9%
Depth: 61.6%
Pav. angle: 40.9
Crown angle: 34.6
Culet: 0.5%
HCA: 1.6 E (E/E/VG/VG)

Can anyone comment on which one provides the best bang for the buck? Is it worth $1600 to go up 0.09 carats but go down 1 color grade and go up 0.1 on the HCA? Should I be concerned that the differences in the AGS and Sarin give such different HCA scores for the 0.958ct? Can anyone comment on the BrillianceScope and LightScope images? Should I be concerned with the 1.2% culet indicated on the Sarin, but is indicated as pointed (0-.45%) on the AGS report for the 0.868ct?

I'm really leaning towards the 0.868 one, but need some piece of mind that I'm getting the best stone for my buck.

Thanks.

 

[wonka27]

Numbers wise, they aren't that bad. I've seen a lot better test scores coming out of GOG though. I wouldn't be thrilled with either of these two if you go on his Website and see some of the Bscopes and Isee2 scores a lot of his other stuff gets.

 

[kevinng]

I think numbers wise... as long as it goes up to the 'Very High' range of the BrillianceScope, it should be fine. I like the bigger one more.

 

[Patty]

I think those B-scopes are great!

It's really up to you, thor. How important is it to have a stone that's closer to the 1 carat mark? That .95 (almost .96) could easily be called a carat. Does that matter to you or to her?

They are both beautiful stones.

 

[thor]

----------------
On 8/17/2004 2:35:57 PM wonka27 wrote:

Numbers wise, they aren't that bad. I've seen a lot better test scores coming out of GOG though. I wouldn't be thrilled with either of these two if you go on his Website and see some of the Bscopes and Isee2 scores a lot of his other stuff gets.----------------

Yeah, unfortunately, among the ones on his site that are similar to this (in temrs of price, size, and quality), these seem to be the best.

 

[thor]

----------------
On 8/17/2004 2:53:56 PM Patty wrote:

I think those B-scopes are great!


It's really up to you, thor. How important is it to have a stone that's closer to the 1 carat mark? That .95 (almost .96) could easily be called a carat. Does that matter to you or to her?


They are both beautiful stones. ----------------

It does matter to me that it's closer to 1 carat, but would the size difference even be noticeable b/t a 0.868 and a 0.958ct stone?

It seems the B-scope for the 0.958 is a tad bit better than for the 0.868, but the HCA is worse. Which one should I rely on more. Also for the 0.958ct, what about the AGS report giving an HCa of 2.1 and the Sarin 1.6? Should that be a concern?

 

[wonka27]

Here is a 1.021 H VS2 H&A from Good Old Gold. Virtually the same price as the .95 G VS2 your looking at. BSCope is better and is a 1.5 on the HCA. Just a suggestion and it will put you in a carat. All you have to go down is one color grade.

 

[motcs]

Wonka - just curious why you think that stone you suggested has a better BScope?

White Light: 1.02 VH > .95 VH
Color Light: .95 VH > 1.02 VH
Scintillation: .95 H/VH > 1.02 H

It seems like these 2 BScope results are comparable.

 

[wonka27]

Maybe comparable is a better word. I think I was looking at too many BScopes at one time.

Just trying to give the poster some other options to think about. This particular one would put him over that psychological "1 carat" barrier.

My bad!

 

[thor]

----------------
On 8/17/2004 3:44:22 PM wonka27 wrote:

Maybe comparable is a better word. I think I was looking at too many BScopes at one time.


Just trying to give the poster some other options to think about. This particular one would put him over that psychological '1 carat' barrier.


My bad!----------------

Thanks. But I think color is a little more important to her than crossing that barrier. G is already stretching it...

Did you notice that in the BrillianceScope for the .958ct that up at the top is says it's an F color?

 

[wonka27]

Your the boss! Good luck w/ your search

 

[Dancing Fire]

thor
what i have notice is GOG stones with gia cert will out preform the one with ags certs if you believe in the b-scope and the isee2 result also, try to look for a stone were the hearts has no black specks on them. chances are those inclusions will be white, but talk to jon about them he does have some amazing stones.

 

[thor]

Ok, so I'm now leaning towards the bigger 0.958ct. To me, the $1600 difference may be worth it for the size difference, given that all other factors are pretty similar. I just want to be sure I'm getting the best stone for the money. Can anyone provide some pros and cons for these 2 stones and/or any other comparable ones you've come across?

 

[JC]

Patty already gave the best answer. Good luck.....

 

[Lynn B]

----------------
On 8/18/2004 10:57:03 AM thor wrote:

Ok, so I'm now leaning towards the bigger 0.958ct...

Whenever I see a stone just shy of one of the magic "benchmark" sizes I always cheer for the cutter who took the high road and cut a beautiful stone rather than saving weight and cutting a mediocre (or worse!) stone, for which he no doubt would have been paid more $$$.

I think it looks like a beauty.

Lynn

 

[thor]

Ok, really about to take the plunge on the .958ct. Is it a good value at $5900? Any last minute thoughts?

 

[bling]

I think youve got a great stone there..get it before someone else does! Jons stones are fantastic! Good luck!