I must know - which one??

[pulp_princess]

I find it pretty intriging that people can approximate a diamond''s appearance based on angles without seeing the stone. Even though all the angles make it ideal (AIC), the angles can also reflect one ideal being a better cut than the other. Is that right? Most people can read the ranges for an ideal cut, but beyond that, it all gets fuzzy for me. With that being said, how does someone know which stone is the better one? Assuming the store does not have a H&A viewer, BS analysis, no Sarin, etc. I have the following as an example. I decided for myself which one has better visual performance, but am wondering if it matches predictions of people who haven''t seen the stone.

Stone #1:
Measurements: 4.01 - 4.04 X 2.46 mm
Weight: 0.24 ct
Shape: RBC
Colour: D
Clarity: VVS1
Depth: 61.1%
Table diameter: 57%
Culet size: None
Crown angle: 34.9
Pavillion depth: 43.0%
Girdle thickness: Thin to slightly thick
Polish: Very good
Symmetry: Very good
UV Fluorescence: None

Stone #2:
Measurements: 4.17 - 4.20 X 2.56 mm
Weight: 0.27 ct
Shape: RBC
Colour: D
Clarity: VVS1
Depth: 61.2%
Table diameter: 57%
Culet size: None
Crown angle: 35.0
Pavillion depth: 43.2%
Girdle thickness: Thin
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Very good
UV Fluorescence: None

 

[Giangi]

I'm gonna be a big pain and ask you why a 0.24/0.27ct D/VVS 1 and not a 0.40 H/SI 1? I mean, at this size the color won't be noticeable, and the SI 1 would be eye-clean. But size difference would be obvious.

I prefer #1. Are these from Tiffany?

 

[Mikesgirl]

I'm with Giangi on this one. First, I agree that the first stone is the better of the two (you could run the numbers on the HCA and on AGA). Next, I'd consider at least a G VS2 to maximize the size. Giangi has lots, lots more experience than I have, but I was skitterish about choosing a stone with an SI clarity with my very untrained eye. Shop the net - you may be suprised what you can find.

 

[pulp_princess]

There was even a noticable size difference between the 0.24 and the 0.27 ct. I did look at the HCA scores, but is there truly a visual difference between 1.3 and 1.7, or is it just my imagination? I didn't think I would see a difference between 0.15 mm either, but I guess I was wrong.

The size, colour, and clarity was not my choice.

It was a complete surprise and I had no say in the matter. Yes, they are Tiffany stones, but I would not have bought either. Thank you for your help!

 

[canadiangrrl]

#2 would be my pick. I don't believe you can really see that much of a difference between a 1.7 HCA and a 1.3, and #2 has the greater diameter.

The differences here in cut at this size are likely small, but the difference is size will be noticeable.

Which one are you leaning towards, Pulp Princess?

 

[pyramid]

I am just a consumer. I would have gone for a larger stone lower colour and clarity, however you state this was not your choice. I do not think there would be much difference in cut at this size and as both stones are under 2 on the HCA which I have read here qualifies as very good then they would both be okay. I have read your posts on the other forum though and I think that as you are not choosing a larger stone and are still going with the choice of the person who bought you the diamond then you should keep your original stone also. It is the original diamond that you still see as more beautiful anyway and it was this stone which was the gift giver's choice at the time of purchase. The ring mount had to be changed because of a quality issue but the diamond does not.

 

[pulp_princess]

Aww, pyramid, you peeked!

I found the first to be a better light performer in bright conditions. Maybe it's my imagination, but it does mesmerize me in elevators. (Mental note: must get track lighting for house...) I was hoping someone might be able to give me a reason why it does that from the numbers. Perhaps that's too much to ask without fancy gemmological toys?

 

[Mara]

Since you don't have pav angle (only %)..then the HCA scores are not going to be as accurate. That 1.3 and 1.7 may really be more like 1.6 and 2.1 with the pav angle as opposed to %.




I would probably have chosen stone #2 because I like size. The diameter difference is huge as you can see from the #'s....and that stone will look significantly larger. Even .10mm difference is visible to me..anything over that is very visible IMO.




Interesting!

 

[aljdewey]

Hey, pulp, a quick question for you:




If you had input into the choice prior to purchase, would you have chosen to receive a smaller Tiffany stone or would you have opted for a larger, non-Tiffany stone of comparable quality?




(And when you answer, don't factor in the problems you've had with Tiffany's subsequent service. This question isn't about the total "experience".....if everything had been perfect with the ring and no adjustments were required, what then would have been your preference?)




Just curious.....so thanks for indulging me!

 

[pulp_princess]

aljdewey, I was actually looking at stones on the internet just before this one was presented to me. I had my eye on a 0.27 E VVS1. So I guess, in answer to your question, no, Tiffany stones would not have been a consideration.

But, I do think that the setting has artistic merit and was my favourite part of the ring. There are settings just like it elsewhere, but are just as expensive, IMHO.