I need guidance

[MrsT]

I''ve posted measurements on a diamond I''m considering but it''s not had any activity due to the subject so I''ll try again.

I''m looking for to upgrade my originall ering. I found the following stones at local jewelers.

There is something unusual in the cut of diamond "A." It has additional facets in the pavillion.
This cut is used on "Cushette" stones and it basically has extra facets in the pavillion portion of the stone. It was patented in 2003 by Diamco,NY. They have stopped cutting round''s and this is a left over.

The 2.31 ct stone is a very good value for the size, and the internal flaws are not too disturbing: some crystals just inside the edge of the crown. Center is clean. No clouds or feathers listed.

"A" "B"
GIA certified GIA certified
carat: 2.31 ct carat: 1.80
color: I color: H
clarity: SI1 clarity: VVS2

table: 65.1% (?) table: 60.0
depth:60.4% depth: 61.2
crown angle: 33.6 crwn/angl:
pavillion: 42.3 pavillion: 41.8
girdle: med to thick
flour: Medium flour: none
size: 8.5 x 8.5 x 5.15
Polish: Good Polish: Very good
Symmetry:Good Symmetry: Good

Diamond "A" is $4,000 less than diamond "B."
Diamond "B" seemed to have much more brilliancy. The vendor that has the 1.80 ct actually raised his voice at me when I asked about the girdle.

"What do you want that for?" was his reaction, then he proceeded to tell me I will never find a diamond because it''s about liking what I see not numbers and statistics.
A nice young man in the showroom tried to make me feel better by saying he would take me diamond shopping with him anyday.

I was flustered but stood my ground. That probably explains why I don''t seem to have copied the crown angle.

Can anyone help me sort this out? I''ve always thought the fire and brilliance was the most important feature for my new upgrade, but I really want a larger stone since I have large hands.

Mrs. T

 

[lizzyd]

Hi Mrs.T,

I don''t know enough about diamonds to feel comfortable venturing outside the generally accepted "ideal" cut characteristics (on AGS, HCA, etc.), unless it''s a really unusual stone and my (very trusted) jewler is telling me it looks INCREDIBLE!

Stone A, when entered into the HCA suggests that either the girdle is overly thick, or the info entered is wrong. It won''t even give me a score. So, it may be a 2.31ct stone, but if there''s a lot of weight hiding in the girdle, it could look a lot smaller than that. And, that could explain why it doesn''t sparkle like the other one. I like the color I (but only in a well-cut stone), and the SI1, as long as it''s eye-clean. The medium flouresence can be nice, as long as it does not appear milky or oily. I prefer polish and symmetry of VG at a minimum, and would much rather have Excellent or Ideal, which suggests the cutter really took time and care with the stone. So, eve though it might sound like a tempting deal, unless you''re primary criteria is weight (which, because of the girdle in this one may not eve translate into size) it really doesn''t look like any deal.

There just is not enough info about the second stone. The H color is nice, but I personally wouldn''t pay the premium for the VVS2 clarity. I don''t need to pay for what my naked eye cannot see.

So, I would pass on both of these stones, unless you''ve seen them and one of them absolutely sings to you.

Why don''t you use the search engine on the home page here, enter H&A, with the size, color and clarity you like, and see what comes up. Look at the numbers on those stones. You don''t have to pay for an H&A premium in the stone you end up purchasing, but it''s a good, simple way to get an idea of the range of numbers to look for. The depth, table, pavilion angle and crown angle are what you need for the HCA (on the drop down menu at the top of the page, under Tools). That''s very useful for weeding out potentially bad stones.

Sorry if this is a downer, especially if you were excited about either of these. The most important thing is how they look to your eye. If you love a stone, it really doesn''t matter what the numbers say. But, if you''re searching on-line, or from a distance, then using the numbers as a criteria is the best way to narrow down the field.

Good luck,
LizzyD

 

[strmrdr]

skip em both and keep looking.
The first is badly cut and the second is too expensive because of the vvs2.
And if this is the pavilion angle the second is badly cut also: pavillion: 41.8

 

[mrssalvo]

Hi mrs.t I can't really help you on the stone w/out the crown angle. i don't know anything about the cushette. I personally prefer ideal polish and symmetry in rounds and not a huge fan personally of the 60% table or the 41.8 pavillion angle. I think a VVS2 is overkill. Not all stones are created equal, many people here have gorgeous eye clean SI1 and SI2 stones and if you drop the clarity a bit, you can use the extra money for the larger stone you want. I'd pass on both stones. Doesn't sound like the local jewelers were very helpful either. Would you consider working with a Pricescope vendor online?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/6/2006 9:17:05 AM
Author: strmrdr
skip em both and keep looking.
The first is badly cut and the second is too expensive because of the vvs2.
And if this is the pavilion angle the second is badly cut also: pavillion: 41.8

Yep - gotta agree with this. I''d pass as well.

 

[Mara]

if stone A has a different cut than the typical RB then the numbers aren''t going to make much sense to us because they look hugely out of the realm of normal, but maybe some of those extra facets have something to do with it...but unfortunately can''t really say much without knowing more. but you said that it didn''t look that great compared to B correct? so i''d pass on that one.

as for B...i don''t really like the VVS either, and also the whole good/very good thing for polish and symm and also the specs on this one don''t seem that fab either, too large table for my taste and if that is the pav angle, it''s too large as well.

i wouldn''t work with that jeweler who flustered you, you want to feel comfortable with what you are getting, not told that you don''t need additional information or that you are asking for too much. i''d also keep looking around and ask for stones that have more typically ideal specs...aka table between 55-57 and depth from aroudn 60-62 and corresponding crown and pavilion angles. you ARE on the right track getting that additional information on the stones to bring back to PS to ask questions...but i would not consider either of these stones, especially for the amount of money they are likely to be costing. don''t settle, and keep looking!!

 

[MrsT]

I thought I sent a reply to your comments but its not here.

I will scratch these diamonds and start again.

Can someone tell me what are the ideal features to look for?

I get confused with determining how good the cut is on a regular GIA report.

Should I look only for excellent''s or are very goods also brilliant stones. Or is it the table and depth that tells of a better cut?

Thanks for the help.
Mrs. T

 

[JulieN]

Symmetry and polish, very good and up. If polish is good, that may be ok.
Depth 60-62. Minor variances outside this are ok, like 59.8 or 62.3
Table 54-58; if you like smaller or larger table, though, that is fine.
Girdle thin-slightly thick.
Copy down depth, table, crown and pav angles and plug into HCA (or post and let people review.)

If you want something to take with you, http://diamonds.pricescope.com/round.asp These are very traditional parameters. You just need categories 1A-2A, the depth, table, crown and pavilion angle. Then later use HCA to reject the problem numbers.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 7/6/2006 12:57:00 PM
Author: Mrs.T

Can someone tell me what are the ideal features to look for?
I get confused with determining how good the cut is on a regular GIA report.
Should I look only for excellent's or are very goods also brilliant stones. Or is it the table and depth that tells of a better cut?

Mrs. T

I personally prefer and AGS000 or Gia ex/ex stone. Mara posted some of her ideal ranges above and this is what she said on another thread:

table: 55-56 (but i would do 54 or 57 MAYBE if the other numbers corresponded but i'd prefer not to)
depth: 60.4ish-61.2ish (these are really strict, you can go up to 62 and still have a lovely diamond but then you lose some diameter in the depth which bugs me)
crown angle: 34.4ish-34.9 (maybe more shallow than 34.4 but depends on other specs)
pav angle: 40.5-40.8 (40.9 if necessary and other specs are cherry)
girdle: thin-med is my fave because i don't want weight lost in the girdle nor do i like to see it
polish/symm: EX/EX or ID/ID
culet: none or vs is fine too
fluor: i'd love slight-strong fluor depending on the stone and the other qualitities...i have slight fluor in my stone now and who knows if it makes a real difference but i like the thought. it's great for lower colored stones.

 

[MrsT]

That is very helpful. I''ll be back when I''ve found something.

Bye the way, the text is so small in various locations on this forum that it''s impossible to read the data.

Anyone have this problem and know how to fix it?

Mrs.T

 

[JulieN]

Mrs.T, i've never had such a problem, but if you're using Internet Explorer: View-->Text Size and then make it one bigger than whatever it is now. maybe that will help?

Did the I color actually bother you? could you see it? or was it a mind thing?

 

[msdarlinjoy]

Date: 7/6/2006 8:35:53 AM
Author:Mrs.T

The vendor that has the 1.80 ct actually raised his voice at me when I asked about the girdle.

''What do you want that for?'' was his reaction, then he proceeded to tell me I will never find a diamond because it''s about liking what I see not numbers and statistics.

Hi Mrs T ~

Hi and welcome to Pricescope!

I have been in the same position as you.

We do not live in a big city, so jewelers are limited, and I must say that most of the jewelers that I came in contact with perhaps felt very intimidated that I knew what I was talking about, and knew they could not easily pull the wool over my eyes. It was very evident when I kept rejecting certain stones, and misinformation that was being presented to me, and said jeweler reacted into shear frustration.

Now, I know and can determin when the visit is heading "South" ... and when to just say "Thank you" and leave. I personally will not do business with a jeweler that is rude, or will not directly answer my questions ... BIG RED FLAG!

You will learn so much here by reading the tutorials

, and getting honest personal feedback from the regulars here ... you will be armed with powerful knowledge!

There are vendors here who will work with you. Let them know what your looking for (Parameters, ie: eye clean diamond, biggest you can get with the $$$ you have, etc...) and they can look for you. I have found in the past that a vendor can call in some diamonds that are within your parameters. My diamond was one of those ... call in some to see what we come up with ... and BINGO! Working with a trusted vendor can save you time, and also "Be your eyes".

I wish you the best of luck in your diamond search ... keep us posted and we are here if you need more help.

Have a great day!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I''m going to stick my nose in here for just a sec to say that I would NOT rule out VVS2 in an H color! It really does not add that much to the price. An H VVS1 is still less expensive than a G VS2 of the same size (between 1.5-2.0 cts.). I am considering VVS stones because it is only adding a few hundred dollars a carat (although my target is VS1).

That said, I agree with the others that you can find much better cut diamonds!

 

[MrsT]

I''m back and feeling mentally challenged with all the technical data I''m reading.

I spent all morning reading for a second time the tutorial on GOG website. It is very easy to read but I don''t think it''s sinking into my non-technica/scientific brain.

I found a diamond on a Pricescope vendors site and plugged in the measurements and got the following score:

Light Return: Excellent
Fire: Exc
Scintilation: Exc
Spread: Very Good
Light Performance: .08

I''ve been shopping a lot and experimenting with this tool as suggested. Most stones I''m seeing in person usually get a score of 1.5.
The embarrassing thing is I''m very confused as to what it all means. The 1.5 lands inside the solid white line box on the color chart and the 0.8 falls out of the lines on the color chart. Is this good or bad?

I quess my question is: Which grading of cut/color will produce the desired effect of sparkle,brightness and contrast? I get confused with all these cuts and grades. Where do I learn what AGS0 and AGS000 means? Can''t seem to find that or else I did but overlooked it because the text was too small to read.

The above stone is 1.85 ct, G/SI1 and I think fairly priced for the color/size. There is no certificate on line to see the inclusions but I''m thinking this might be a good choice if it''s a clean SI1 and the diamond report is AGS or GIA. There are no actual photo''s of this diamond on the web site. That bothers me somewhat.

What do you guys think (about the stone not my inability to get this yet!)

Am I going in the right direction yet?
Mrs. T

 

[strmrdr]

Lower isn''t always better on the HCA when they fall below 1 they need to be evaluated for contrast issues.
They may be fine but in some cases aren''t.
The white box is AGS0 candidates.

 

[lizzyd]

Hi Mrs. T.,

I know, it can be really overwhelming.

Any HCA score less than a 2.0 may be really good, but still must be looked into (and looked at) for more information.

As Strmrdr said, the ones that score less than 1.0 could possibly have too much contrast.

The best I can explain contrast is: Part of what makes a diamond look so sparkly and white is that a well-cut stone will reflect both white and black, light and dark, back to the eye. Some black/dark being reflected back to your eye can help to "contrast" (or highlight) the white, giving it depth and making it seem even whiter/brighter because it''s next to black (does this make sense?).

But there is a balance. Some people find too much white/light more pleasing to the eye, others less. The same with contrast. Some prefer really marked contrast. Others are really bothered by what they feel are too many flashes of black mixed in with the white/bright. It''s really personal preference.


Where you asked : " I quess my question is which grading of cut/color will produce the desired effect of sparkle,brightness and contrast? I get confused with all these cuts and grades. Where do I learn what AGS0 and AGS000 means? "

It''s really the cut that creates the sparkle, brightness and contrast. I''ll come back to this in a minute.

The clarity is the easiest for me to figure out. My rule of thumb is, if I can''t see an inclusion with the naked eye, then I''m happy with the clarity. Now, a really well-cut, sparkly stone will hide inclusions better than a dead looking piece of glass. I usually look for SI1 and SI2, and just ask the jewler if it''s eye clean. I don''t want to pay for a VS or VVS, or above. I''d rather put that money into the size

.

The color is a really personal thing. I''m very happy with stringently graded (GIA & AGS) I''s and J''s, once again, only if really well-cut. I would probably be happy with a K too, but have never seen an ideal cut K. These will face up very white once set. Some people are very color sensitive and wouldn''t dream of going below an F or G. Remember when you''re shopping and looking at stones in person, you won''t be wearing it flipped upside down against a piece of white paper (like they show you loose stones in the store). Try them on with an empty setting on your finger and just drop the stone in to get a real feel for the look. Also, make sure you look at the stone in all kinds of light environments. Take it outside in natural light. Hold it under the counter for really indirect light (it should light up like a headlight under the counter). The lights in jewlery store can make a dried hunk of paste sparkle.

As for cut: I''m kinda like you. I don''t understand anywhere near all of the numbers and what they mean.

So, herer''s what I do to find a stone.

I look for the size, color and clarity I like. I only look through the Whiteflash, GoodOldGold and Pricescope search engines. I only look at in-house stones. And I only look for Ideal cuts (A Cut Above or Expert Selection at Whiteflash, Hearts & Arrows or other ideal round cuts at GOG). I look at the pictures, look at the numbers, run them through the HCA. But the most important part is I talk to one of the staff there who is holding the stone in their hands and telling me what it looks like.

If you''re still really nervous, you can have the stone sent to an independent (p''scope, of course) appraiser, with no obligation to buy. Then you can get a look at it and have it appraised at the same time. You can buy it and live with it for a few days. If you don''t like it, you can send it back.

What part of the country do you live in? It''s good (but not necessary) to go to a Pricescope vendor to look at a variety of stones.

God, I'';ve written a novel. Sorry. Hope this helps.

Best,
LizzyD


P.S. Let me know if any of these ramblings don''t make sense.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/6/2006 8:35:53 AM
Author:Mrs.T
I''ve posted measurements on a diamond I''m considering but it''s not had any activity due to the subject so I''ll try again.

I''m looking for to upgrade my originall ering. I found the following stones at local jewelers.

There is something unusual in the cut of diamond ''A.'' It has additional facets in the pavillion.
This cut is used on ''Cushette'' stones and it basically has extra facets in the pavillion portion of the stone. It was patented in 2003 by Diamco,NY. They have stopped cutting round''s and this is a left over.

The 2.31 ct stone is a very good value for the size, and the internal flaws are not too disturbing: some crystals just inside the edge of the crown. Center is clean. No clouds or feathers listed.

''A'' ''B''
GIA certified GIA certified
carat: 2.31 ct carat: 1.80
color: I color: H
clarity: SI1 clarity: VVS2

table: 65.1% (?) table: 60.0
depth:60.4% depth: 61.2
crown angle: 33.6 crwn/angl:
pavillion: 42.3 pavillion: 41.8
girdle: med to thick
flour: Medium flour: none
size: 8.5 x 8.5 x 5.15
Polish: Good Polish: Very good
Symmetry:Good Symmetry: Good

Diamond ''A'' is $4,000 less than diamond ''B.''
Diamond ''B'' seemed to have much more brilliancy. The vendor that has the 1.80 ct actually raised his voice at me when I asked about the girdle.

''What do you want that for?'' was his reaction, then he proceeded to tell me I will never find a diamond because it''s about liking what I see not numbers and statistics.
A nice young man in the showroom tried to make me feel better by saying he would take me diamond shopping with him anyday.

I was flustered but stood my ground. That probably explains why I don''t seem to have copied the crown angle.

Can anyone help me sort this out? I''ve always thought the fire and brilliance was the most important feature for my new upgrade, but I really want a larger stone since I have large hands.

Mrs. T

Okay, if it were me, I''d throw both of those back in the ring and start over. I also wouldn''t go back to the vendor that raised his voice and said really stupid things to me. The second stone looks better, but I don''t trust the guy. The first stone is really all about size, I don''t see much else redeeming it (other than that I like med blue flour lol)

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/9/2006 10:50:17 AM
Author: lizzyd
Hi Mrs. T.,

I know, it can be really overwhelming.

Any HCA score less than a 2.0 may be really good, but still must be looked into (and looked at) for more information.

As Strmrdr said, the ones that score less than 1.0 could possibly have too much contrast.

The best I can explain contrast is: Part of what makes a diamond look so sparkly and white is that a well-cut stone will reflect both white and black, light and dark, back to the eye. Some black/dark being reflected back to your eye can help to ''contrast'' (or highlight) the white, giving it depth and making it seem even whiter/brighter because it''s next to black (does this make sense?).

But there is a balance. Some people find too much white/light more pleasing to the eye, others less. The same with contrast. Some prefer really marked contrast. Others are really bothered by what they feel are too many flashes of black mixed in with the white/bright. It''s really personal preference.

I bet I''d like a lot of contrast, but I''d need to experiment more with my eyes to see what it''s talking about.


The color is a really personal thing. I''m very happy with stringently graded (GIA & AGS) I''s and J''s, once again, only if really well-cut. I would probably be happy with a K too, but have never seen an ideal cut K.

Mara just posted pictures of a GORGEOUS K, but I can''t remember where so ask her! lol

 

[MrsT]

LizzyD

I think you made a lot of sense. Good job and thanks for trying.

I am going to revisit the subject of contrast. I''m not sure I''ve even taken this piece of the puzzle into serious consideration because I didn''t really get it. But I think I am now starting to understand.
I must confess I can''t imagine how you know that a low score below 2.0 might not have contrast and needs to be seen in person or described by reputable vendor. If the HCA says excellent choice - isn''t it??!!!

I live in NJ so it is possible to visit GOG. I have emailed GOG with a request and waiting patiently for a reply realizing it will take some time to find what I''m looking for.

I appreciate your suggestions particularly considering an H or I color to get a larger sized diamond in my budget. But that is really scary to me because I don''t like to see tint. But I have to be careful to remember that it''s going to be on the hand! Not against a white background.

I have really liked some "H" diamonds in strores when they have been cut well.

Is there a post that explains everyone''s names of the various cuts?
How do I weed through all the names:AGS0,Ideal/SuperIdeal/H&A/Cutabove/Signature/Excellent/VeryGood/Premium, and on and on?

I''ve got some diamonds I passed up that I''m going to get the measurements of and see what you guys think.
Be back soon.
Mrs T

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Mrs T, all you need to tell GOG is that you want an AGS ideal cut or GIA excellent cut, hearts and arrows stone, approx. carat range, clarity and color range, and budget. You don't want to bother looking at less than ideal or excellent cut. This assures you are looking within the best cut tier of diamonds. I don't think we have to get a physics degree to buy a diamond. But people like Jonathan at GOG do have the technical knowledge and he can choose good stones for you to consider. They are closed on Sunday and Monday, so Tuesday is the earliest you will receive a reply. Good luck!

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 7/9/2006 3:15:56 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Mrs T, all you need to tell GOG is that you want an AGS ideal cut or GIA excellent cut, hearts and arrows stone, approx. carat range, clarity and color range, and budget. You don''t want to bother looking at less than ideal or excellent cut. This assures you are looking within the best cut tier of diamonds. I don''t think we have to get a physics degree to buy a diamond. But people like Jonathan at GOG does have the technical knowledge and he can choose good stones for you to consider. They are closed on Sunday and Monday, so Tuesday is the earliest you will receive a reply. Good luck!

ditto..

 

[lizzyd]

Date: 7/9/2006 2:31:40 PM
Author: Mrs.T
LizzyD

I must confess I can't imagine how you know that a low score below 2.0 might not have contrast and needs to be seen in person or described by reputable vendor. If the HCA says excellent choice - isn't it??!!!

Mrs T

Hi again,

It's actually when they get below a 1.0 that they might have too much contrast. It's not that they're poorly cut. It's just the look they can get in that range. Some people swoon over it, some like to avoid it.

As for HCA excellence...it is very good at seperating the wheat from the chaff. From what I understand about the tool though, if it says a stone is a dog, it's a dog. If it says it's excellent, there's still a small chance that it could be sub par, thus the need to see it (or be able to return it).


ETA: That's why it's such a great thing to be able to sit down at a place like GOG, where they know what they're talking about, they like to educate their customers, and they have inventory. You can look at a variety of different stone characteristics in person and see what speaks to you and what doesn't. Then, they can go find the right looking stone for you in your size/color/clarity/cut/price range.

Good luck, and let us know how the visit goes!

Cheers,
LizzyD

 

[MrsT]

I found the following diamond and although it is GIA certified Excellent (12/05), it does not exhibit the features I love to see in the diamond of my dreams. How can this be?

Diamonds look great under jewelry store lighting, but I don''t like when they go flat in sunlight. I certainly don''t understand why so many diamonds I''ve seen just die when I take them outdoors to view in sunlight and shade.

The store where I viewed this diamond was a storefront building. The counter was surrounded by huge windows on two walls. There was a lot of natural light in the building. Not like the lighting you see in a mall jewelry store. Could this explain why this diamond did not seem to have any scintilation(movement) or fire(colors). It was bright and seemed to have good contrast. I interpreted this complex feature in this way:
The diamond did not seem to look like a gray pool. It had variations of white''s/grays/dark grays. Or, with my head shadow there was still whitle light coming through. I think I like contrast but I don''t think I''ve seen a diamond yet that has great contrast and therefore don''t know what is most appealing to my eye.

GIA Cut Grade: Excellent
1.72 ct/ G / SI1 (pin points scattered throughout under 10x)
Polish: Excellent
Symmentry: Excellent
Table: 55%
Depth:61.8% (could this be the cause?)
Crown Angle: 35.5%
Pav. Angle: 40.6
Culet: None
Fluor: None
7.67 * 7.70 * 4.76 mm
HCA: 1.3 score

$15,000

Any thoughts as to why this diamond didn''t seem too have much movement and play with light? All the data was taken right off the GIA report and I have a copy.

Thanks,
Mrs. T