How does this sound?

[HornAround]

Date: 4/15/2009 7:56:43 PM
Author: musey

Date: 4/14/2009 8:29:10 PM

Author: Stone-cold11

This link is a video comparison of color in a ideal cuts stone. Take a look at it. http://vimeo.com/3288695 For me, I color is still negligible.

Wow, I guess I just learned that I''m color-sensitive!! Who knew?


I still like the look of lower colors, even though I can perceive it. ETA: I don''t mean that perceiving lower colors (K-O) is what made me say I was color sensitive, I was talking about the difference between D-F.

Re: your setting going with the stone that''s picked out, why don''t you take it with you to whiteflash and have them plop the stone in there? Then you''ll have a very good idea of whether you like the look or not.

That''s the plan, it shall be interesting.

 

[HornAround]

I''ve been doing some research and I found a pretty good diamond on blue nile per the HCA score (1.3). I know it''s not as good as the 1.0 but how much of a difference is that .3?

I''m not saying I''m buying from Blue Nile rather just getting some info on why they''re not prefferred here. Here is the page...Blue Nile

 

[fabienne]

Let''s see if I have been lurking long enough...if not, PS experts, please feel free to tell me to sit back and lurk some more.....

The HCA is to be used for rejection not selection and the reason PSers are not big fans of BN is because they don''t provide enough of the information that PSers use when they are making decisions on their stones. An Ideal scope image and/or an ASET image will give you more information about how the diamond is going to perform. I don''t know about your girl, but I am all about getting as much light performance as I can afford out of a diamond. I love

the sparkle of diamonds. I can''t even begin to guess that information without the images I mentioned, especially since I''m not that good with the numbers like the experts are.


That being said, I''m still a newbie, but I think this is probably why they don''t love BN here. I''ve heard they have a good return policy though, so if you have all the equipment, then maybe you could "analyze" it and ship it back if its not what you thought it was. Sound like a hassle to me though.

Girliegirl--- Thank yo so much for those charts!

 

[Imdanny]

Date: 4/14/2009 9:04:00 PM
Author: HornAround

Date: 4/14/2009 8:49:32 PM

Author: Stone-cold11

Take a look at this.



http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/Whiteflash-ACA-cut-diamond-2097574.htm#

That looks very nice. I just wonder if the .79 is worth the money over the .75? Also, per the the video the H is in the middle scale of the near colorless. Shouldn''t I try for the closest to colorless? I notice the diamond didn''t have the GIA grading. Is AGS just as prestigious as GIA?

It''s considered better around here because it''s considered to be more consumer oriented, but, yes, AGS is as prestigious, or more prestigious, than GIA. If I am not mistaken, AGS split off from GIA. In any case, AGS is totally legit- nothing to worry about there.

 

[Imdanny]

Date: 4/14/2009 8:15:43 PM
Author:HornAround
I've been doing a lot of reading and I'm still as lost as when I first started. This diamond stuff can be quite tricky. Here is a little background. I'm going to ask my beautiful girlfriend of one year to marry me. I've already picked out the band. It's 18k white gold and has .50 carats in the band. My search for a diamond has been frustrating. The good thing is the ring doesn't need a big diamond to compliment it. I've discussed it with others and it looks like .75 round diamond is what I need to set it off. The tricky part is finding the perfect blend of C's for my budget. I've narrowed it down to a few choices but I wouldn't mind a few opinions from experts as yourselves. Does this sound like a good choice per GIA?


Color - G

Clarity - VS1

Cut - Excellent

Characteristics - Crystal

Polish - Excellent

Symmetry - Excellent

Fluorescence - None


The price is 3k for the diamond alone.



I picked the best cut because I've heard that plays a huge role in brilliance. I've also heard the color is pretty negligible to the naked eye from 'G' on up, hence the 'G' pick ( same goes for the clarity choice). Can I do better with this price set in mind? Thanks for your time and help.




Oh yeah, this if off Blue Nile's website.

I'm sorry that your search has been frustrating. I think that you've come to the right place to take care of any frustration that you may feel. I'll give you my take on your post briefly, fwiw.

There are price jumps at certain sizes, including .5, .75, and 1.0. Therefore, you might want to try to come in at just under .75, instead of getting .75 or above.

Since you mention you have a budget (who doesn't) and that you're trying to balance the four C's, I have a couple comments for you about clarity and color.

It is true, according to pricescope's informational pages, that 1 in 100 people will see an inclusion in VS2. This page (I'm sorry but I don't have the link) says that if that bothers you then you should get a VS1. In fact, it is very, very easy to get an eye clean VS2. You truly might want to scratch the VS1 and look for a VS2 (or even an eye clean SI1-- other people can advise you about SI1 better than I can-- basically, each company has a definition of "eye-clean" and the first thing to do is to find the definition and read it).

In my personal opinion, G is not necessary at all. The thing that affects brilliance is cut. Think about this- the "near-colorless" range starts with J (again if I am not mistaken). Let's say that you personally want to rule out J because you care about colorlessness (not saying that you do want to rule out J and I personally would absolutely not rule out J). Even given that you might chose something other than J, I think that you should consider H and I. I don't agree with the idea that a person should get as close to the top of the color scale as possible. I like all colors personally and H and I are in the near-colorless range and seem perfectly "white" to me-- they are anything but "yellow."

If you haven't, you might also want to consider branded cuts (Whiteflash's ACA for example), but in any case, for a RB, I would get the highest cut grade (absolutely).

If you put all of these factors together, I am sure that you can get a very good deal on one of the world's most beautiful RB diamonds. Good luck to you!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/16/2009 2:19:30 AM
Author: fabienne
Let's see if I have been lurking long enough...if not, PS experts, please feel free to tell me to sit back and lurk some more.....

The HCA is to be used for rejection not selection and the reason PSers are not big fans of BN is because they don't provide enough of the information that PSers use when they are making decisions on their stones. An Ideal scope image and/or an ASET image will give you more information about how the diamond is going to perform. I don't know about your girl, but I am all about getting as much light performance as I can afford out of a diamond. I love

the sparkle of diamonds. I can't even begin to guess that information without the images I mentioned, especially since I'm not that good with the numbers like the experts are.


That being said, I'm still a newbie, but I think this is probably why they don't love BN here. I've heard they have a good return policy though, so if you have all the equipment, then maybe you could 'analyze' it and ship it back if its not what you thought it was. Sound like a hassle to me though.

Girliegirl--- Thank yo so much for those charts!

Thats it exactly. The HCA is used for elimination and not selection. ASET and Idealscope are very useful with round diamonds and ASET is essential with fancy shapes as are detailed photos. BN are a good vendor, it is just that they won't supply the images above - however maybe most of their clientele are not cut focused and don't want, know or care about the above images anyway.

 

[Lorelei]

Here are some more diamonds which might suit you.

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/Whiteflash-ACA-cut-diamond-2097572.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/Whiteflash-ACA-cut-diamond-2097575.htm

 

[HornAround]

Ok, per AGS report, which one would you choose (for some reason I can't upload the mages)?

.78 Round Brilliant

Cut - Ideal (AGS 0)
Color - F (AGS 1.0)
Clarity - VS2 ) (AGS 4)
Fluorescense - Negl
Table - 54.9
Depth - 62.3
Crown - 33.7
Pavilion - 41.0
Cutlet - Pointed

or

.79 Round Brilliant

Cut - Ideal (AGS 0)
Color - H (AGS 2.0)
Clarity - VS2 (AGS 4)
Fluorescense - Negl
Table - 55
Depth - 61.1
Crown - 34.7
Pavilion - 40.7
Cutlet - Pointed

 

[Lorelei]

Out of the above from the info given, I would choose the second diamond. Do you have the diameters and girdle measurements also please?

 

[stone-cold11]

Agree, #2, the 0.79c.

 

[HornAround]

Date: 4/16/2009 12:05:03 PM
Author: Lorelei
Out of the above from the info given, I would choose the second diamond. Do you have the diameters and girdle measurements also please?

First diamond

5.98-6.01 x 3.67

Thin to Medium Faceted


Second diamond

5.88-5.92 x 3.68

Slightly thick to very thick


Is this what you were looking for?

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 4/16/2009 1:17:45 PM
Author: HornAround

First diamond

5.98-6.01 x 3.67
Thin to Medium Faceted

Second diamond

5.88-5.92 x 3.68
Slightly thick to very thick

With this info, I would be tempted to choose #1 because of better spread. When was the report dated?

 

[HornAround]

Date: 4/16/2009 1:21:55 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 4/16/2009 1:17:45 PM
Author: HornAround

First diamond

5.98-6.01 x 3.67
Thin to Medium Faceted

Second diamond

5.88-5.92 x 3.68
Slightly thick to very thick

With this info, I would be tempted to choose #1 because of better spread. When was the report dated?

march 24, 2009

 

[stone-cold11]

What about the 2nd stone?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/16/2009 1:17:45 PM
Author: HornAround

Date: 4/16/2009 12:05:03 PM
Author: Lorelei
Out of the above from the info given, I would choose the second diamond. Do you have the diameters and girdle measurements also please?

First diamond

5.98-6.01 x 3.67

Thin to Medium Faceted


Second diamond

5.88-5.92 x 3.68

Slightly thick to very thick


Is this what you were looking for?

Yes thank you! I would still choose the second one, you would not notice any real difference between the two for face up size. Do you have the girdle measurements in percents for the second diamond please?

 

[HornAround]

Date: 4/16/2009 1:41:55 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
What about the 2nd stone?

april 3, 2009

 

[HornAround]

Date: 4/16/2009 1:43:20 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/16/2009 1:17:45 PM
Author: HornAround

Date: 4/16/2009 12:05:03 PM
Author: Lorelei
Out of the above from the info given, I would choose the second diamond. Do you have the diameters and girdle measurements also please?

First diamond

5.98-6.01 x 3.67

Thin to Medium Faceted


Second diamond

5.88-5.92 x 3.68

Slightly thick to very thick


Is this what you were looking for?

Yes thank you! I would still choose the second one, you would not notice any real difference between the two for face up size. Do you have the girdle measurements in percents for the second diamond please?

what if I told you the first one was about 400 bucks cheaper......

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 4/16/2009 1:45:14 PM
Author: HornAround

Date: 4/16/2009 1:41:55 PM

Author: Stone-cold11

What about the 2nd stone?

april 3, 2009

Weird. I would have thought with that girdle, there would be a penalty in the cut grade, or proportion factor...

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/16/2009 1:46:18 PM
Author: HornAround

Date: 4/16/2009 1:43:20 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/16/2009 1:17:45 PM
Author: HornAround

Date: 4/16/2009 12:05:03 PM
Author: Lorelei
Out of the above from the info given, I would choose the second diamond. Do you have the diameters and girdle measurements also please?

First diamond

5.98-6.01 x 3.67

Thin to Medium Faceted


Second diamond

5.88-5.92 x 3.68

Slightly thick to very thick


Is this what you were looking for?

Yes thank you! I would still choose the second one, you would not notice any real difference between the two for face up size. Do you have the girdle measurements in percents for the second diamond please?

what if I told you the first one was about 400 bucks cheaper......

With the girdle, does it say slightly thick to very thick on the vendor page, or on the grading report? Is this diamond with Blue Nile? That could explain the girdle in this case if so.

 

[HornAround]

Date: 4/16/2009 2:06:57 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/16/2009 1:46:18 PM
Author: HornAround

Date: 4/16/2009 1:43:20 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/16/2009 1:17:45 PM
Author: HornAround

Date: 4/16/2009 12:05:03 PM
Author: Lorelei
Out of the above from the info given, I would choose the second diamond. Do you have the diameters and girdle measurements also please?

First diamond

5.98-6.01 x 3.67

Thin to Medium Faceted


Second diamond

5.88-5.92 x 3.68

Slightly thick to very thick


Is this what you were looking for?

Yes thank you! I would still choose the second one, you would not notice any real difference between the two for face up size. Do you have the girdle measurements in percents for the second diamond please?

what if I told you the first one was about 400 bucks cheaper......

With the girdle, does it say slightly thick to very thick on the vendor page, or on the grading report? Is this diamond with Blue Nile? That could explain the girdle in this case if so.

It's on the vendor page of Blue Nile. They're both AGS graded but the one from Blue Nile doesn't have a description on the report, rather something saying 2% to 4.5% faceted.

 

[Lorelei]

Ok I thought as much, the girdle measurement is a glitch in their software, it isn't actually slightly thick to thick! The girdle is actually thin to slightly thick which is in desirable range.

 

[HornAround]

Date: 4/16/2009 3:20:09 PM
Author: Lorelei
Ok I thought as much, the girdle measurement is a glitch in their software, it isn''t actually slightly thick to thick!

so it''s a bad girdle? Blue Nile is lying about it?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/16/2009 3:21:28 PM
Author: HornAround

Date: 4/16/2009 3:20:09 PM
Author: Lorelei
Ok I thought as much, the girdle measurement is a glitch in their software, it isn't actually slightly thick to thick!

so it's a bad girdle? Blue Nile is lying about it?

No, it is a problem with their software I think. This happens a lot when they enter AGS girdle percents as I have seen it before, and that is why I asked if this was a BN diamond from the girdle discrepancy, it would appear that on the vendor page it comes up as slightly thick to very thick for AGS reports. I am speculating but I think this happens when they are using AGS girdle percentages that it defaults to slightly thick to thick instead of what the girdle actually translates to - which in this case is thin to slightly thick. No problem at all - the girdle is within excellent range!

 

[HornAround]

Date: 4/16/2009 3:22:14 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/16/2009 3:21:28 PM
Author: HornAround

Date: 4/16/2009 3:20:09 PM
Author: Lorelei
Ok I thought as much, the girdle measurement is a glitch in their software, it isn''t actually slightly thick to thick!

so it''s a bad girdle? Blue Nile is lying about it?

No, it is a problem with their software I think. This happens a lot when they enter AGS girdle percents as I have seen it before, and that is why I asked if this was a BN diamond from the girdle discrepancy, it would appear that on the vendor page it comes up as slightly thick to very thick for AGS reports. I am speculating but I think this happens when they are using AGS girdle percentages that it defaults to slightly thick to thick instead of what the girdle actually translates to - which in this case is thin to slightly thick. No problem at all - the girdle is within excellent range!

You''ve been very helpful and I thank you for your patience. When you said the girdle was within excellent range, which one were you talking about? The Blue Nile one?

 

[HornAround]

I just went and saw the diamond from whiteflash talked about in the above scenario. It was very nice but I wonder if the color was decent enough. I thought seeing an array of diamonds in person would make this easier. Hogwash, I''m more confused than ever.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 4/16/2009 3:44:57 PM
Author: HornAround
You''ve been very helpful and I thank you for your patience. When you said the girdle was within excellent range, which one were you talking about? The Blue Nile one?

Ya, the second stone you listed.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/16/2009 3:44:57 PM
Author: HornAround

Date: 4/16/2009 3:22:14 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/16/2009 3:21:28 PM
Author: HornAround

Date: 4/16/2009 3:20:09 PM
Author: Lorelei
Ok I thought as much, the girdle measurement is a glitch in their software, it isn''t actually slightly thick to thick!

so it''s a bad girdle? Blue Nile is lying about it?

No, it is a problem with their software I think. This happens a lot when they enter AGS girdle percents as I have seen it before, and that is why I asked if this was a BN diamond from the girdle discrepancy, it would appear that on the vendor page it comes up as slightly thick to very thick for AGS reports. I am speculating but I think this happens when they are using AGS girdle percentages that it defaults to slightly thick to thick instead of what the girdle actually translates to - which in this case is thin to slightly thick. No problem at all - the girdle is within excellent range!

You''ve been very helpful and I thank you for your patience. When you said the girdle was within excellent range, which one were you talking about? The Blue Nile one?

You are most welcome, glad to help! Yes the girdle of the second diamond with the slightly thick to very thick description is actually within great range - the BN diamond.

 

[HornAround]

The BLue Nile one is the first diamond I was talking about in the above scenario.

So I went to check out the whiteflash diamond. It was a beautiful cut and I liked the overall brilliance. However, I was shown similar diamonds and I really couldn't tell too much of a difference between them all. I think it's jsut going to come down to price and convienence.