I got the Sarin. What do you think of this stone????

[stephcola]

Hi all of you experts out there. Unexpectedly I found another diamond and was just emailed the GIA cert and Sarin. Details as follows;
Round Brilliant 3.01 ct. H SI1
Clean table, small white inclusions under the crown - eye clean
VG,VG
Sarin
Diameter 9.32 (9.29-9.33)
Crown angle 34.
crown ht. 14.8
PAv. angle 40.2
Pav. depth 41.7
culet 0.9
table 55.6
depth 60.3
girdle thick 1.2 - 2.4

All AGS grade 0 except Pav. depth 2. Is this worht looking at??? It is in my price range and I can even see it in person (2.5 hour drive!!!)
I am still waiting for the sarins and certs on a few others. Help please!!!

 

[Mikesgirl]

It rates a 1 (excellent - within TIC range) on the HCA. Can't get an AGA rating without a depth measurement, but it looks like a 2A, maybe a 1B. Looks like it's worth looking at!

 

[Mara]

Hey Steph...wow the HCA gives the stone a 1 EX TIC with VG for Light Return, EX for Scint, EX for Fire and EX for Spread. Sounds like it would be a very pretty stone with those numbers....the pav angle maybe a tad shallow but it sounds like it may make for an interesting stone.




I would have someone DiamCalc it for you to get an idea of where (if any) the light leakage occurs. But if you see it in person and you like it, the numbers sound pretty good esp for your budget!!




I would get the other Sarins too and compare them all, but my two cents is that you should definitely go view this stone.




Good luck!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Nice stone.
Some would think it too shallow - the table will go dark if you look at it from 6 inches - but it is big enough to see from 6 yards away

The symmetry could throw you and you need to have it appraised or trust the vendor

 

[stephcola]

Thanks for your help, once again. Mara, how or where do I get someone to diamcalc this stone or any other stone for that matter???

Based on my very limited knowledge, this stone seemed to have great ratings. Atleast as compared to others in my price range.

I will keep you all posted. I am not certain when I can look at this one.
regards,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The only asymmetry in the ideal-scope image of the stone I posted is from out of roundness. so the DC result may not be this good.
You could buy your own ideal-scope or send the stone to an appriaser.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Sorry I posted the wrong screen shot

BTW did you get any more data that was different from the GIA cert?

 

[stephcola]

Hi guys,

I just rec'd another Sarin on one of the original 3.01 stones. ALl numbers were grade 0 except pavillion depth which was a 4!! That's 2 more than the one I posted last night. Since my budget and size reqt. will not allow me to get the"ideal" stone we all aspire to have....I think the earlier one with the excellent grades and a pav. depth grade of 2 is worth looking at. It is a few hundred $$$ more than the grade 4 but I am sure worth more. I am still waiting for some other certs/sarins. I will keep you posted. Thanks and please keep those opinions coming....

 

[magna2]

stephcola,


The 3.01 H SI1 stone that you posted should be a good buy. And best of all it is in your budget. Although it will be a 2.5 hour drive (5 hour roundtrip ?), it might be worth it to take the day to see it personally so that you can determine whether this is indeed the diamond for you.

Garry, stated that it may have symmetry problems. You can check to see if whether this is indeed a problem. A three ct diamond is a good chunk of maoney so it might behoove you to check it out.

 

[Mara]

The original stone was VG VG for polish and symm, could symm be THAT off if it was rated VG by GIA? Just curious. It is a GIA report right?




Steph--post the #'s for the second stone. Just because the AGS grade is 4 does not mean that the stone is not good. AGS grades to me are not the 'definitive' answer, my beautiful stone is an AGS 7 and I get compliments on it all the time. It's a preference thing...

 

[Giangi]

I like the #s on the first one... It's a bit too shallow for my tastes, but it should be pretty and very lively.

An AGS-4 pavilion depth isn't the best way to start. Unless the crown is very shallow --about 30', assuming the pavilion is something like 45% or 42'-- (and it isn't since it's an AGS-0), I doubt it will look beautiful. Probably fairly nice, but not gorgeous. But do post the #s... It will be interesting!

 

[stephcola]

Giangi,Mara, all....

The sarin on the second H SI1 round .... 3,010 All (0) except pav.
diam 9.33 ( 9.29-9.36)
depth 5.66% 60.7%
crown 35.7 16.4 %
pav 39.8 41.5% AGS 4
table 5.15m 55.2%
cutlet 0.3 vsmall
girdle 1.7 (0.8-2.5)

What does this one look like to you??????? This is about $600. less than the first one I posted. Thanks again for your help. Regards,
P.S. THis one I would have to order to view.

 

[Mara]

Odd--HCA will not let me input those numbers....says the girdle on this stone is dangerously thin. But the girdle numbers you posted do not show that? Hmm.




That crown is really steep and the pav is really shallow. Interesting.




Are you using the same or different jewelers to find these? They look amazingly similar (except for the crown angle!)--very shallow on the pav.

 

[Giangi]

Oh I assumed it was an AGS-4 because it was too deep. But it's too shallow actually.
It looks fairly close to #1. It should look pretty too. I guess that at this point it's all about the $ difference and the visibility of inclusions... But I still prefer #1.

 

[stephcola]

Both are different vendors and both stones are have different GIA certs and Sarins. They do look very close though. Stone #1 had VG/VG and stone #2 was G/VG.Also, the inclusions are different. I will be looking at #1 and an additional stone on Saturday. I am very happy to be able to view stones in person.

Mara, I took all the details off the Sarin report. I don't know why they won't go into your program.

Any other opinions are always welcome. Anyone out there with knowledge of similar stones please let me know. Thanks!!!

 

[stephcola]

Giangi,,

The inclusions on stone one are better than on stone #2 so I am glad you think #1 is better. I will advise after I see it. Hopefully it's a winner.
Regards,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The AGS 4 stone can not be those proportions - the girdle thickness is negative - probably a total depth typo or something.

If it does have that crown and pavilion angle it will be avery nice firey stone - but deeper.

get us the rest of the dimensions and it will be obvious.
In fact please give us all the data not bits and ppieces

 

[stephcola]

These are the figures for the AGS4 stone - right off the Sarin
diam 9.33 (0=9.28-9.36)
depth 5.66
crown 35.7
pav 39.8
table 5.15m
cutlet 0.3

girdle 1.7 (0.8 - 2.5)


From Gia cert
3.01 H SI1
Depth 60.9
table 54
G/VG
9.28 x 0.33

I have not given you all the details at once because all this was not available to me at the same time. I believe this diamond is still available so what are your comments. THanks

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 10/14/2003 2:06:04 PM stephcola wrote:





Giangi,Mara, all....

The sarin on the second H SI1 round .... 3,010 All (0) except pav.
diam 9.33 ( 9.29-9.36)
depth 5.66% 60.7%
crown 35.7 16.4 %
pav 39.8 41.5% AGS 4
table 5.15m 55.2%
cutlet 0.3 vsmall
girdle 1.7 (0.8-2.5)

What does this one look like to you??????? This is about $600. less than the first one I posted. Thanks again for your help. Regards,
P.S. THis one I would have to order to view.
----------------

I got that this stones rates a 1.2 FIC. What's wrong with that? Sounds like it should be beautiful according to the numbers.

60.7% depth, 55% table, 35.7° crown angle, 39.8° pavilion angle

 

[aljdewey]

Hey, all: Regarding the confusion on these numbers....it's because the depth and table dimension are expressed in measurements of millimeters instead of percentages.




5.66m depth on a 9.33m stone = 60.6% depth.


5.15m table on a 9.33m stone = 55.2% table

 

[stephcola]

The numbers for stone #1 were better though??right??? What do you think???
I am viewing some stones on Sat. so I will have a better idea of where I am leaning. Thanks for your input.

 

[Mara]

Interesting...that second stone sounds really pretty. FIC and all.




AL--I don't know why but when I put in the original data Step gave (and yes I was using the %'s and not the mms)..HCA would not let me input it, said girdle was dangerously thin. Garry's next post said that the numbers couldn't be right either. So unless Steph changed her post or similar...something was fishy!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

all is clear - the depth is correct now an=d it all adds up

i like it

 

[stephcola]

Cut Nut, Mara, everyone else,

I am confused now. Is stone #2 now better than stone #1????? Stone #1 had an AGS (2) for depth and stone #2 has an AGS (4). Since I don't know anything about AGS, diamonds, etc............ isn't a 2 better than a 4 or is that not the case?? I've been told 0 is the best. I am looking at the stone that rates an AGS 2 on Saturday as well as 3 other stones. Should I hold out for stone #2 that you just said you like??? I am so confused.

If the stone sparkles and I cannot see any inclusions I will be happy. I just want to make sure that I get the very best stone for the price. Stone# 2 is about 600-800 dollars less. I would have to order this one - it is from BN. I therefore would'nt have them at the same time to view side by side. Two months ago, I would have never dreamed there was a whole diamond world out there. I figured when I replaced my stolen diamond I just needed to get the right color , eyeclean and 3ct+ Boy did I have this all wrong. It just brings to light all the local jewelry stores who have tried to rip me off ( and eveyone else) royaly!!! I cannot thank you all for your patience and advice. Please comment about the 2nd stone. Is is a second choice??? I need to know Friday latest! thanks.

 

[aljdewey]

Frankly, there are so many posts with numbers in them now that they all look the same.




Steph, do me a favor....put both sets of numbers in one post.....that would make it easier.

 

[stephcola]

Here are the details of 2 - 3.01 SI1 (H) stones
1.
diam 9.32(9.29-9.33)
crwn depth 41.7
ht. 14.8
culet 0.9
table 55.6
depth 60.3
girdle 1.2 - 2.4

VG/VG

2.
diam 9.33 (9.29 - 9.36)
depth 5.66,m
crown 35.7 / 16.4ht
pav 39.8
41.5
table 5.15m
culet 0.3 vsm
girdle 1.7 (0.8-2.3)

depth 60.7
table 55.2

AGS 4

FYI - The stones are from different vendors and sarins were different as well.

Sorry I couldn't put them side by side. I tried - all of the figures kept moving!!!
Note - from what I can see from the emailed GIA certs, stone 1 might have better inclusions. The vendor I am visiting will be showing me 4 or 5 stones. Atleaset 2 will be H SI1's and 2 might be G SI2's. I figure I might as well view the G SI2's as well. If I can find a totally eyeclean G SI2 - I'd rather have a G color. Please have a look at the figures and tell me whether I might need to look at stone 2. This is exhausting.

 

[aljdewey]

There's data missing on stone 1. The crown depth cannot be 41.7.....it looks like you listed the pavilion angle as the crown, and didn't list the crown angle.

 

[Mara]

Steph...people are PRETTY CLEAR when they talk about the stones they prefer. Saying '#2 looks really hot' to me says..Yes this is a good stone. Saying 'I like this stone' means just that. Not alot of hidden meaning in there. Understandably, you are a little overwhelmed by this entire experience, but you really need to help us help you. And please read the tutorial.




IMO both stones are good. However, I kind of like the stone #2 because of the FIC (read up on the tutorial on Pscope if you have not already done this, you should...this will explain more about the HCA and the FIC/BIC/TIC etc). This second stone will probably have alot of fire.




However, others noted they liked #1 and #2...I like #1 too actually. Didn't you say you are seeing #1 in person in the store this weekend? So see it. Not alot of rocket science there. I would also order the BN stone since it seems you have found not only one but two stones that could be really beautiful. I don't think either of these will disappoint you.




AGS0 means a whole lot of nothing in my opinion. It's just a set of numbers that AGS says makes a stone look great. Not always so. I have run alot of AGS0 stones through the HCA and come up with horrendous numbers for them. I think it's just misleading. All H&A and/or ideal stones will have AGS0 grading, but not all AGS0 graded stones are going to be great. Make sense? Probably not. In the same vein, an AGS1 can be a lovely stone, as can an AGS4 or even an AGS7 (which is my stone). So you can see why I don't give the AGS0 too much credence...unless it's matched up with other great numbers.




What more is there to say? If you have not read the Tutorial on this site, please do. I recommend it for ALL newbies before they post any questions--it may not make alot of sense before you get deep and dirty into finding the stone, but at least you have it under your belt for reference.




Good luck and let us know on Monday how your weekend with viewing the stones turns out.

 

[aljdewey]

Maybe it will be easier if I try to do it this way: Two H, SI1 stones, 3.01 ct each.




Stone 1 Stone 2



Polish/Sym: VG,VG Polish/sym: Unknown (not posted)



Diameter 9.32 (9.29-9.33) Diameter 9.33 (9.29-9.36)


depth 60.3 Depth: 60.7


table 55.6 Table: 55.2
Crown angle 34. Crown angle: 35.7
PAv. angle 40.2 Pav angle: 39.8
culet 0.9 Culet: 0.3
girdle thick 1.2 - 2.4 girdle thick .08 - 2.5


HCA: 1 TIC (vg-ex-ex-ex) HCA: scores 1.2 FIC (vg-ex-ex-vg)




Steph: Bottom line...both look good. They will have a different look....#1 has more of a balance between fire and white light.....#2 will have less white light but more fire.




Note on the SI-2 comment......certainly take a look at it, but I think you'll find that SI2 inclusions in a stone of this size will be fairly noticeable to the unaided eye. I personally don't think it's worth the trade off just to get a "G" color....your eyes won't be able to see the diff betwen the G and H especially once set.




Good luck!