I think this is the one!

[treepop]

Shape: Round
Carat weight: 0.72
Cut: Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Certificate: AGS
Depth: 61.1%
Table: 56.3%
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Girdle: Thin to medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Neglible
Measurements: 5.74*5.78*3.52
Crown Angle: 34.5°
Crown %: 15.1
Pavillion Angle: 40.5°
Pavillion %: 42.5

it has a hearts and arrows designed cut

It scores a 0.4 on the HCA.

What are your thoughts?


ALSO I Messed up the firts ones Numbers..its .723 ct weight

 

[Regular Guy]

I love the F VS 2 AGS.

I presume AGS000?

Haven''t you been looking at a lot with similar specs?

Do you have pictures? (I''m not a great one for reading them with confidence, but others are)

Preliminarily, looks good!

 

[strmrdr]

bit on the shallow/shallow side but with ideal optical and physical symmetry it can rock.
Do you have a heart image and an ideal-scope image and a sarin scan?

 

[treepop]

The other one I am considering but is a WHOPPING $400 more! is this one.

Shape: Round
Carat weight: 0.72
Cut: Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Certificate: AGS
Depth: 61.6%
Table: 56.3%
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Girdle: Thin to medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Neglible
Measurements: 5.75*5.77*3.55
Crown Angle: 34.7°
Crown %: 15.2
Pavillion Angle: 40.7°
Pavillion %: 43

It scored a 1.1 on the HCA...I am under the impression that lower is better(generally)

As for pics and such on the first stone. I really don't have any that I can show you. It is totally eye clean of course.

When you say it's shallow/shallow is it a "stone of death" shallow? I heard that stated on the interview on price scope when they went to new york.

 

[treepop]

As for the AGS 0 0 0...the funny thing is..both are ideal ideal ideal...but the seocond ones DQD actually has light performance 0 proportions 0 etc...while the 1st one only says ags ideal 0 and then says Ideal cut polish symytry proportions but no 0....I am assuming they are the same.

But both are dqd's.

 

[Regular Guy]

It scored a 1.1 on the HCA...I am under the impression that lower is better(generally)

Well, from what I read here, generally, it is not better than a 1.1 (a lower score like .4). But infrequenly, it is significantly better.

I think the only way to discern the difference is with some sort of expert read...either with pictures, or a precision scan of some sort. The discussion here may help (I think it helped me).

 

[diamondseeker2006]

They both look like winners. Are you able to see them both in person?

 

[treepop]

so I guess you got that rock

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 8/4/2006 7:54:51 PM
Author: treepop
so I guess you got that rock

Nope! It did sell this afternoon, though! That''s why it''s really dangerous to post specific stones on here without putting them on hold. There are many, many lurkers who read the recommendations. Since I was looking at 2 different pair of stones, it was especially risky that one of either pair would sell. And one of them did!

So I hope you decided on one! Did you?

 

[treepop]

I got one .....I am really excited.....it''s gunna be a beutifull stone.

I am not going to specify which one exactly since it''s not 100% aquired yet.

I really hope everything goes through.

WOOT!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

That''s great! And it''s fine if it was the one I was looking at. I had two pair of stones that were possibilities.