In Need of Help Choosing Between the Two Diamonds

[boxsterfx]

Hello

I am having really tough time comparing and choosing between the following two diamonds and would love your honest opinion between the two -- which would you go with?. Same color (I), clarity (VVS1), cut (EX), and symmetry (EX). The only difference is the carat weight (1.91 vs. 1.80) and the price difference is roughly $100.


1) http://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=2175854000

- HCA score of 1.1 (using average number from SARIN report)
- HCA score of 1.3 (using the rounded numbers from the GIA certificate)
- Hearts view revealing hearts are not so symmetric after all (having some doubts).

vs.

2) http://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=2171895203

- HCA score of 0.9 (using the rounded numbers from the GIA certificate)
- No SARIN report available for this diamond.
- Hearts and Arrows image available (https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.80-carat-i-color-vvs1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-2209482)

I have already purchased the first diamond but still have about a week left to change my mind. Based on reading many posting on the web regading cuts and symmetry, I feel that diamond #2 could be a better choice (or am I incorrect here)? Am I being foolish here to discard diamond #1?


Your help is greatly apprecaited.

Eric

 

[ac117]

Not foolish but I wouldn't trade the diamond you have....it's bigger and the crown angle is slightly higher which will produce more fire. The 1.8 is a touch too deep (we recommend no greater than 62.3) but the angles are very nice.

 

[boxsterfx]

Hi ac117,

Many thanks for your insight.

So I shouldn't be too concerned with diamond #1's cut as the hearts view in the SARIN report. It leads me to think that the diamond isn't symmetric (e.g. see 12 o'clock vs 6 o'clock for example) and that's is sort of the main reason why I am having some doubts about diamond #1.

Based on the deviation reported in the SARIN report, would you say any of these numbers are alarming?




I have yet to see diamond #2 in person (will in a few days) and only comparing it with diamond #1 based on: 1) what the GIA certificate shows, 2) lower HCA score than diamond #1, and 3) H&A image revealing more symmetry.

Thanks for your time.

 

[ringo865]

HCA score doesn't measure heart and arrows. Any score under 2 is as good as any other. A 0.9 doesn't mean "better" than a 1.8. Your first stone shows AGS 0 in the light performance pic. If that's true, that stone will certainly be a bright one!

They both seem like they'd be nice, but I personally do like a higher crown (more fire) and more diameter (size). (#1)

If you're going to be able to look at the two stones together, view them in many different lighting conditions. Pick the one that is most pleasing to your eye.

Of course take pictures and let us know which one you pick!!

 

[ac117]

Nothing alarming to me in the sarin report. Both of these stones are not precision cut stones like you would get buying, for example, a WF ACA. While I do see the slight tilt of the 12 o'clock arrow and and the clefts in some of the hearts of the first stone, the second stone still isn't perfect (one of the arrow tips doesn't connect to the shaft and the top 2 arrows in the IS look slightly closer together than the others). These are all differences that will be SO hard to detect with the naked, untrained eye, especially once mounted.

The HCA is a rejection tool, not selection tool and you're only looking for stones that score less than 2...but there is no "better" score. .8 is NOT better than 1.8.

However, you have the luxury of seeing both in person at the same time so I think it would be best to choose what's more pleasing to YOUR eyes at that time. Everyone's preferences in diamonds are different (some prefer more fire of a higher crown, others more white/brightness of a 60/60 style stone) so while I may prefer stone 1, your eyes may prefer stone 2. We are really nitpicking, though, because both stones are lovely and you can't go wrong with either choice.

 

[boxsterfx]

Hi ac117,

I can't thank you enough for your comments and valuable insight here.

I am well aware of WF ACA diamonds and how well ACA diamonds known for their 'precision' cuts. I have looked through WF inventory for some time. I found some of their diamonds labeled ACA to be not all that "precise" or "cut above" where it is more of a near H&A than a true H&A. With that in mind, I am not entirely sure if it is makes sense to pay that extra premium for these ACA diamonds.

For instance,

WF ACA diamond example #1

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3685691.htm
http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104087128009-PGRH.PDF

-- the gaps on 1 and 7 o'clock is larger than the gaps on 5 and 11 o'clock.
-- the gap on 8 o'clock is not evenly split
-- ASET image on the AGS diamond certificate shows the tips ('^') on 2, 5, 7, and 8 o'clock are tilted.


WF ACA diamond example #2

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3718106.htm
http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104088850010-PGRH.PDF

-- ASET image on the AGS diamond certificate shows the tips of 5 and 8 o'clock are tilted.
-- The '^' on 4 and 5 o'clock are not all that symmetric.

What are your thoughts on these two diamonds? Would you say these two are in fact better than the 1.91 and 1.8 in my original post? Am I looking too much into fine details that I really shouldn't?

Lastly, what is your opinion towards diamonds graded by GIA vs AGS? Some say that diamonds graded by GIA is priced higher than AGS but I don't know if that is true because AGS tends to have more strict cut 'boundaries' for diamonds to be graded as excellent cut (e.g. AGS 0).


Best,

Eric

 

[boxsterfx]

HCA score doesn't measure heart and arrows. Any score under 2 is as good as any other. A 0.9 doesn't mean "better" than a 1.8. Your first stone shows AGS 0 in the light performance pic. If that's true, that stone will certainly be a bright one!

They both seem like they'd be nice, but I personally do like a higher crown (more fire) and more diameter (size). (#1)

If you're going to be able to look at the two stones together, view them in many different lighting conditions. Pick the one that is most pleasing to your eye.

Of course take pictures and let us know which one you pick!!

Hello Ringo865,

I appreciate you taking the time to share your valuable opinion.

Looks like I will need to take my 1.91 and compare when I look at 1.8 this week. Could you be more specific on "different lighting conditions" that you recommend?

Here's the photo of 1.91 for now. I also have a video showing it the diamond bounces light but I don't think I can upload a video here

 

[ac117]

Hi ac117,

I can't thank you enough for your comments and valuable insight here.

I am well aware of WF ACA diamonds and how well ACA diamonds known for their 'precision' cuts. I have looked through WF inventory for some time. I found some of their diamonds labeled ACA to be not all that "precise" or "cut above" where it is more of a near H&A than a true H&A. With that in mind, I am not entirely sure if it is makes sense to pay that extra premium for these ACA diamonds.

For instance,

WF ACA diamond example #1

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3685691.htm
http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104087128009-PGRH.PDF

-- the gaps on 1 and 7 o'clock is larger than the gaps on 5 and 11 o'clock.
-- the gap on 8 o'clock is not evenly split
-- ASET image on the AGS diamond certificate shows the tips ('^') on 2, 5, 7, and 8 o'clock are tilted.


WF ACA diamond example #2

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3718106.htm
http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104088850010-PGRH.PDF

-- ASET image on the AGS diamond certificate shows the tips of 5 and 8 o'clock are tilted.
-- The '^' on 4 and 5 o'clock are not all that symmetric.

What are your thoughts on these two diamonds? Would you say these two are in fact better than the 1.91 and 1.8 in my original post? Am I looking too much into fine details that I really shouldn't?

Lastly, what is your opinion towards diamonds graded by GIA vs AGS? Some say that diamonds graded by GIA is priced higher than AGS but I don't know if that is true because AGS tends to have more strict cut 'boundaries' for diamonds to be graded as excellent cut (e.g. AGS 0).


Best,

Eric

All great and valid questions...you're spending a lot of money and I applaud you for putting so much thought into it!

Well, like with everything, there's a range. ACA's have to fall within a range to qualify as ACA stones...if they are slightly out of that range, they drop to Expert Selection...slightly out of that range, they'd be a Premium Select or maybe be rejected. So not every ACA stone will be exactly the same, as you've pointed out. But if you are seeking the top of the line cut, go with an ACA/super ideal (I would also recommend looking at High Performance Diamonds/Crafted by Inifity and Brian Gavin). I'm not sure what your budget is, but you could probably safely drop to a VS1 or VS2 instead of paying the premium for VVSI in the James Allen stones. The JA True Heart stones are not precision cut but they have been specifically selected as True Hearts because they fall within certain parameters that make them ideal.

I can't answer for you if the premium for the super ideal stones are worth it because that's a personal choice; some people here will ONLY buy super ideal stones...others will hunt for stones like your 1.91 and 1.8...GIA XXX stones that would qualify for AGS 000, which usually gets you a decent savings or more size for your buck. I personally did the latter when searching for my upgrade a few months ago and was able to go much larger and better color for less money than I would've by going the super ideal route.

GIA's ranges are way too broad, which is why we recommend sticking within certain 'ideal cut' parameters when searching for GIA XXX stones that. AGS already assesses light performance, which is the major benefit of going that route. You could also work with a PS vendor who could personally assess the stones and provide light return images (this is also what I did). But this is part of the reason for the premium you pay for a super ideal, since this is already provided and all stones are in house.

I'm going to look for a thread that may help where Gypsy (one of our guru's here) gives a great explanation on going the super ideal vs. gia xxx selected route.
ETA: FOUND IT! READ THIS: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/likelihood-of-finding-a-signature-super-ideal-diamond.174235/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/likelihood-of-finding-a-signature-super-ideal-diamond.174235/[/URL]

 

[ringo865]

Looks like I will need to take my 1.91 and compare when I look at 1.8 this week. Could you be more specific on "different lighting conditions" that you recommend?

Here's the photo of 1.91 for now. I also have a video showing it the diamond bounces light but I don't think I can upload a video here

[/quote]

WOW!! That 1.91 looks nice!! And yes, by all means, the only fair comparison is to compare the two stones side-by-side. Different lighting conditions means NOT JUST UNDER THE MAGICAL JEWELRY STORE LIGHTS!! So, bathroom, kitchen, office, outdoors etc.

Sounds like you are going to a physical store to see the other stone in person? They might get twitchy when you ask to take their stone outside, to the bathroom, lol. They will want to accompany you wherever you go with their stone. Or, if you can get it with a return policy, take them both home and drool on them -- inspect them for a better comparison.

Also don't worry about mixing them up, the inscriptions are etched on the girdle. Make sure you fire the one that belongs on the 1.91, cuz if you buy the other, or a different one, you'll want to return the correct stone to that vendor

 

[gm89uk]

Hi ac117,

I can't thank you enough for your comments and valuable insight here.

I am well aware of WF ACA diamonds and how well ACA diamonds known for their 'precision' cuts. I have looked through WF inventory for some time. I found some of their diamonds labeled ACA to be not all that "precise" or "cut above" where it is more of a near H&A than a true H&A. With that in mind, I am not entirely sure if it is makes sense to pay that extra premium for these ACA diamonds.

For instance,

WF ACA diamond example #1

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3685691.htm
http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104087128009-PGRH.PDF

-- the gaps on 1 and 7 o'clock is larger than the gaps on 5 and 11 o'clock.
-- the gap on 8 o'clock is not evenly split
-- ASET image on the AGS diamond certificate shows the tips ('^') on 2, 5, 7, and 8 o'clock are tilted.


WF ACA diamond example #2

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3718106.htm
http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104088850010-PGRH.PDF

-- ASET image on the AGS diamond certificate shows the tips of 5 and 8 o'clock are tilted.
-- The '^' on 4 and 5 o'clock are not all that symmetric.

What are your thoughts on these two diamonds? Would you say these two are in fact better than the 1.91 and 1.8 in my original post? Am I looking too much into fine details that I really shouldn't?

Lastly, what is your opinion towards diamonds graded by GIA vs AGS? Some say that diamonds graded by GIA is priced higher than AGS but I don't know if that is true because AGS tends to have more strict cut 'boundaries' for diamonds to be graded as excellent cut (e.g. AGS 0).


Best,

Eric

You're being very analytical of a single image. Perfect imagery to line them up is extremely difficult and your nuisances are nothing that would be visible to the naked eye. With diamond two in particular, the tips you mention look different for example in the actual diamond image compared to the idealscope compared to the ASET. The slightest off angle will change their size. The 4 and 5 oclock tips look more symmetrical in the actual diamond photo than in the ASET.

Compared to your original diamonds, are they cut to a stricter criteria, and are they a better cut? Yes they are! The ones you picked also have a lovely cut. Will you notice a difference? Maybe a slight difference, with careful examination, but certainly not an obvious one, maybe non at all. Some members swear of the difference between super ideals and well cut ideals, some members can't see much of a difference..

I posted mainly to highlight the imperfections highlighted can be somewhat misleading that these are not top of the line stones due to very minor different alignments between serial photographs.