Help!

[cjrusso]

HELP! I need to decide between these two round brilliant diamonds. Any advice?

Chris

1) 1.08 cts; 6.67x6.63x4.03
Depth %: 60.6
Table: 55
Crown Height: 15
Pavilion Depth: 43
Girdle Thickness: Thin, Faceted

Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: None

Clarity: SI1
Color: H
Fluorescence: None
Certificate: EGL, 3/2004 (company is located in USA)

Holloway Cut Advisor: 0.7

Price: $3790

2) 1.06 cts
6.57x6.62x3.99
Depth: 60.8%
Crown Angle: 32.9
Crown Height: 13.5
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion Depth: 43.1
Culet: 0.3%
Table: 56.6%
Girdle: Sl. Thick (2.2%)

Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent

Clarity: SI1
Color: I
Fluorescence: None
Certificate: GIA 9/2003

Price: $3923

Quote from representative at company: "The diamond has ideal proportions, extremely white, bright and a very clean SI1, Polish and Symmetry - Excellent, an absolutely beautiful diamond."

 

[Stephan]

H EGL = I or J GIA... so I take the second one.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 4/20/2004 5:07:07 PM Stephan wrote:

H EGL = I or J GIA... so I take the second one.----------------

Hm... the price for GIA's I-SI is about the same as H-SI EGL, so that risk about one grade shift is already incorporated. Two grades? - this would be a bit much to say about EGL.

Besides, how do the inclusion plots (not to say the inclusions themselves) look like? These could be clean or not so clean

HCA anyone?
Both stones have good score (0.7 TIC and 1.2 TIC)... The shallower crown on the GIA stone cuts away fire - so I would go with the first. With such dead-on numbers, even quite bad approximation in the crown and pav percentages would not harm the conclusion of the HCA analysis.

So? the first stone is my winner

 

[Stephan]

AnA, I already saw a I-VS2 EGL...
GIA said K-SI2.
Dangerous game with a big amount of money.
Less fire? See my last topic about HRD certs...
Depends on the minor facets also.
You really have to see the 2 diamonds.
It's dangerous to buy SI1's online, even VS2's.
Even if they are eye clean.

 

[cjrusso]

I got 0.8 HCA for stone #2 using the angles....

 

[cjrusso]

This is the Sarin report on stone #2. Should I be concerned about the off center part? I've never read anything about that.

 

[cjrusso]

GIA Report for diamond #2

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 4/20/2004 5:31:00 PM Stephan wrote:

AnA, I already saw a I-VS2 EGL...
GIA said K-SI2.
Dangerous game with a big amount of money.
Less fire? See my last topic about HRD certs...
Depends on the minor facets also.
You really have to see the 2 diamonds.
It's dangerous to buy SI1's online, even VS2's.
Even if they are eye clean.----------------

Yay! that is a BIG gap and on both grades

And you know what? Those sarin reports can be really botched to (sometimes you wander how can one send such paper away in the first place!).

And agreed on having to see them, but how ? Not much of a chance...

You did get the best deal on your diamond Stephan - as 'hands on' as they get!
Little risk when workig so closely with the best people

I wish there was better info on this EGL vs GIA deal. Your exemple invites lots of skepticism. Since they already discount for EGL stones, I bet whoever makes the price knows there might be more to discount. So the point is moot and safety in the more valued (= higher priced) certs.

 

[Giangi]

I would go with #2. The first stone seems to be an EGL Israel report. Do a search to get a feel of what we think about them.

I wouldn't be jurprised if it turned out to be I-J and SI 2 or lower if submitted to the GIA or HRD.

I wouldn't gamble, if I were in your shoes. The GIA stone has very appetible numbers and has a pretty clean plotting diagram.

 

[valeria101]

I don't know any typical ranges for thee 'offcenter' measures, but even the best stones woudl have about 0.3% or so - and that is very little. These would be taken into account in the symmetry grade - which is Ex...

Sorry for the diverging opinions on EGL - everyone would contend they deliver slack grades, with little proof going around (as you may imagine no one would really want it). Stephan's eample is the worst I ever heard of as yet, but one grade off in both color and clarity is quite likelym even from my more optimistic point of view

The second stone is by no means a looser - actually passes all quality checks with flying colors. From the pic of the inclusions chart I can see the biggest mark being a long feather near the girdle - probably not at all obvious. Once you have the stone, it would be worth checking wether this thing breaks the surface (hopefully not). No way to gues this from pics and numbers.

However, all details set great expectations about this one!

 

[Stephan]

----------------
On 4/20/2004 5:47:03 PM Giangi wrote:

I would go with #2. The first stone seems to be an EGL Israel report. Do a search to get a feel of what we think about them.

I wouldn't be jurprised if it turned out to be I-J and SI 2 or lower if submitted to the GIA or HRD.

I wouldn't gamble, if I were in your shoes. The GIA stone has very appetible numbers and has a pretty clean plotting diagram.

----------------

Go with #2 if the price is right, because it isn't an AGS-0 and the culet off-center is quite important (0.8%).
Ask for IdealScope and H&A's pics, I'm pretty sure that the H&A pattern isn't perfect; but that doesn't mean that the stone isn't gorgeous. It's still GIA EX/EX with a great HCA score...