Is this really that great of a stone? (HCA says so)

[FLY6584]

6.87 - 6.94 x 4.10 mm
1.17
G
VS2
PRECISION OF CUT: EXCELLENT
SYMMETRY: EXCELLENT
POLISH: EXCELLENT
TOTAL DEPTH PERCENTAGE: 59.4%
TABLE SIZE PERCENTAGE: 58%
CROWN ANGLE: 33.5°
PAVILION DEPTH PERCENTAGE: 43.0%
GIRDLE: MEDIUM TO SLIGHTLY THICK (FACETED)
CULET: NONE

According to GIA and AGS the depth is a little low and the pavillion angle is very low. Is it still a good stone. (See attached HCA report).

 

[JulieN]

Bigger size starting to tempt you?

 

[Ellen]

Ideally, what most want, and I''d prefer, is somethiong that falls within both. I think you would have to see this one to decide, and possibly compare it some with more ideal numbers.

 

[FLY6584]

Date: 5/2/2007 1:57:35 AM
Author: JulieN
Bigger size starting to tempt you?

Yeah I guess so. This definitely looks like a really big stone for the carat weight. I knew right off the bat that it was a shallow stone and I almost ruled it out completely and then I ran the numbers through HCA and it came back as a very nice stone. I don''t really know what to make of that.

I''ve ran numbers that seem more ideal like a 60.5 depth, 56 table, 34.5 crown, and 40.8 pavillion and none of them came back as good on the HCA scale as this one did.

 

[FLY6584]

Date: 5/2/2007 6:41:40 AM
Author: Ellen
Ideally, what most want, and I''d prefer, is somethiong that falls within both. I think you would have to see this one to decide, and possibly compare it some with more ideal numbers.

When you say both you are referring to falling within GIA/AGS standards and the HCA standards correct?

 

[FLY6584]

What do you all think about this one then? It falls into both.

6.52 - 6.57 x 4.05 mm
1.06
G
VS2
PRECISION OF CUT: EXCELLENT
SYMMETRY: EXCELLENT
POLISH: EXCELLENT
TOTAL DEPTH PERCENTAGE: 61.9%
TABLE SIZE PERCENTAGE: 56%
CROWN ANGLE: 34.9°
PAVILION Angle: 40.8%
GIRDLE: MEDIUM TO SLIGHTLY THICK (FACETED)
CULET: NONE

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/2/2007 10:15:48 AM
Author: FLY6584

When you say both you are referring to falling within GIA/AGS standards and the HCA standards correct?

Yes!


The HCA likes shallower numbers, which is why that one scored so well. Now, it could be beautiful, but like I said, I think you would really have to see it and compare.

I like all the numbers on the last one you posted.

 

[FLY6584]

Date: 5/2/2007 10:24:37 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 5/2/2007 10:15:48 AM
Author: FLY6584

When you say both you are referring to falling within GIA/AGS standards and the HCA standards correct?

Yes!


The HCA likes shallower numbers, which is why that one scored so well. Now, it could be beautiful, but like I said, I think you would really have to see it and compare.

I like all the numbers on the last one you posted.

Sounds good. I really like the numbers also. I''m just unsure whether I want to go with a G VS2.

I was originally planning on going with an F VS1 in about the .97-1.04ish range, but Tiffany''s can not find any that satisfy my cut requirements.

So now I am considering going to a G VS1/2 and getting a bigger stone. I''m guessing most people would probably rather have a G VS2 and a bigger stone than a smaller F stone, but it is really important to me that you can see absolutely no yellow in the stone.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/2/2007 10:30:57 AM
Author: FLY6584
Sounds good. I really like the numbers also. I''m just unsure whether I want to go with a G VS2.

I was originally planning on going with an F VS1 in about the .97-1.04ish range, but Tiffany''s can not find any that satisfy my cut requirements.

So now I am considering going to a G VS1/2 and getting a bigger stone. I''m guessing most people would probably rather have a G VS2 and a bigger stone than a smaller F stone, but it is really important to me that you can see absolutely no yellow in the stone.

Your guess would be right.

I have a 1.40 G, and I can''t see any yellow in it. You are absolutely fine with a G, unless you know you are highly color sensitive.

 

[FLY6584]

Date: 5/2/2007 10:36:40 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 5/2/2007 10:30:57 AM
Author: FLY6584
Sounds good. I really like the numbers also. I'm just unsure whether I want to go with a G VS2.

I was originally planning on going with an F VS1 in about the .97-1.04ish range, but Tiffany's can not find any that satisfy my cut requirements.

So now I am considering going to a G VS1/2 and getting a bigger stone. I'm guessing most people would probably rather have a G VS2 and a bigger stone than a smaller F stone, but it is really important to me that you can see absolutely no yellow in the stone.

Your guess would be right.

I have a 1.40 G, and I can't see any yellow in it. You are absolutely fine with a G, unless you know you are highly color sensitive.

Let me ask you this being that an F is not a D does that mean an F is actually more yellow than a D, but is still considered "Colorless".

It seems to me like this "Colorless", "Near-Colorless", etc is a bunch of BS. Why call an F colorless if it is not as colorless as a D. If an F had more color than a D then you shouldn't be able to call it Colorless. I really think stones should just be rated D-...whatever and labels shouldn't be given to the different ranges unless you were to say everything else has some color and the only true colorless stone is in fact a D.

my .02

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/2/2007 10:44:28 AM
Author: FLY6584

Let me ask you this being that an F is not a D does that mean an F is actually more yellow than a D, but is still considered ''Colorless''.

It seems to me like this ''Colorless'', ''Near-Colorless'', etc is a bunch of BS. Why call an F colorless if it is not as colorless as a D. If an F had more color than a D then you shouldn''t be able to call it Colorless. I really think stones should just be rated D-...whatever and labels shouldn''t be given to the different ranges unless you were to say everything else has some color and the only true colorless stone is in fact a D.

my .02

lol

Yes.

E, and F have so little color that the large majority can''t see anything. They all look the same, so they get that label. Not sure why G isn''t in there, as the large majority can''t see anything in it either, but I guess you have to cut it off somewhere. H with some, and definitely I are where people start to see the difference. Although they will still "face up" quite white in a well cut stone.