ISO Sage Advice: Comparison please

[Arcane]

Hello,

I discovered PS a few weeks ago and found it to be an invaluable resource while searching
for a stone for an engagement ring. Of course, part of the reason PS is so great is because of the community. So, I hope to enlist the assistance of some of the gurus here on this
journey.

I''m still digesting the information, and have found these two diamonds which I would like others'' opinions on. The specifications are very similar and after entering them into the HCA, the stones score 0.8 and 1.2 for the WF and GOG, respectively. But, I''ve read that a score lower than 1 does not necessarily indicate a better stone.

So, which of these would you select? Please explain your choice so that I may continue
learning and understand the nuances of diamond selection. Of course, I know that specs are useful to an extent, but personal preference actually seeing which stone "talks" to you is ultimately what''s important.

Thank you for any input!

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2416695.htm#
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/1937/

 

[belle]

you are right, they are very similar! you probably wouldn''t be able to tell them apart if they were side by side. when you hit this level of cut there are going to be only subtle, if not indetectable, differences. depending on how you finance the stone, the wf one is almost 1k cheaper. that makes it an easy choice for me!

 

[Arcane]

Thanks Belle for your input. I''m still learning how to "read" diamonds and hopefully I will learn enough to help others and make a postivie contribution on this forum in the future.

I had a chance to compare the specs a little more closely and this is what I''ve found but not sure if I''m interpreting them correctly.

1) The crown and pavillion angles show slightly more variation in the GOG stone. Perhaps the tighter tolerance on the WF stone is what contributes to the lower HCA score?
a) Regarding the HCA score, was my previous assumption that scores < 1 do not necessarily translate to better stones scoring in the 1 -2 range?

2) Comparing the IS images, it seems like there''s more light leakage in the GOG stone. But, this is confined to the perimeter which is good and contributes to greater scintillation?

3) The product pagefor the GOG stone have AGS and GIA scores asIdeal and Excellent with Optical Symmetry being ideal. But the Sarin report shows that it has Very Good symmetry. Is this a mistake or am I reading something incoorectly?

4) The GOG stone has a thicker girdle on average, and medium fluorescence.

Are my deductions correct, and is there anything bewtween the stones which I should pay particular attention to which would sway my opinion? Or is the only significant difference reflected in the price?

Thank you much!

 

[Arcane]

Any more advice or opinions, please?

 

[belle]

Date: 8/9/2006 7:18:22 PM
Author: Arcane

Thanks Belle for your input. I''m still learning how to ''read'' diamonds and hopefully I will learn enough to help others and make a postivie contribution on this forum in the future.

you''re welcome arcane. i look forward to your future contributions. it is the generosity and willingness to learn and share by people like yourself that makes ps such an awesome place.

Date: 8/9/2006 7:18:22 PM
Author: Arcane

1) The crown and pavillion angles show slightly more variation in the GOG stone. Perhaps the tighter tolerance on the WF stone is what contributes to the lower HCA score?

hca is more straightforward than that. it does not take into account variation (nor any other variables, such as minor facet configuration and optical symmetry) it relies solely on the input of designated information input by the user and gives a ''score'' based on that information. basically, there are certain angles that are proven to work better with certain table and depth ranges and hca lets you know, by giving a certain score, which of those combinations are more likely to work.

Date: 8/9/2006 7:18:22 PM
Author: Arcane

a) Regarding the HCA score, was my previous assumption that scores < 1 do not necessarily translate to better stones scoring in the 1 -2 range?

that is a safe assumption. there are many other factors that would contribute to one stone performing better (or just looking better to you) than another. hca was designed to help weed out poor performers based on the correlation of certain angles. it cannot be used to pick among top cuts. there are too many other variables.

Date: 8/9/2006 7:18:22 PM
Author: Arcane

2) Comparing the IS images, it seems like there''s more light leakage in the GOG stone. But, this is confined to the perimeter which is good and contributes to greater scintillation?

there is intentional leakage cut in the gog stone but i would not say it contributes to *greater* scintillation. just different. mind you, this difference is very subtle and to many, the difference is indectable.
http://knowledge.whiteflash.com/Q10327.aspx

Date: 8/9/2006 7:18:22 PM
Author: Arcane

3) The product pagefor the GOG stone have AGS and GIA scores asIdeal and Excellent with Optical Symmetry being ideal. But the Sarin report shows that it has Very Good symmetry. Is this a mistake or am I reading something incoorectly?

optical symmetry (the hearts and arrows symmetry) is not the same as lab graded symmetry, so they may not always match. as far as lab graded symmetry, unless the stone carries a report issuing the the grade (ideal, excellent...etc) it can only be assumed (hoped?) that is the grade that would be received. ie.. you can''t say a stone is ags ''ideal'' if it was graded gia ''excellent''. only ags can grade the stone as ideal.

Date: 8/9/2006 7:18:22 PM
Author: Arcane

4) The GOG stone has a thicker girdle on average, and medium fluorescence.

i don''t remember what the girdle thickness was on the gog stone and the page wouldn''t load for me just now, so i don''t know how much thicker you are talking about but i will say that i tend to like thinner girdles because you get more spread for the carat weight. my stone has a ''thin'' girdle and in the future i would hope to find the same.
medium fluorescence is fine, as long as it is blue. it there is no designation on the color of the fluor., be cautious.

Date: 8/9/2006 7:18:22 PM
Author: Arcane

Are my deductions correct, and is there anything bewtween the stones which I should pay particular attention to which would sway my opinion? Or is the only significant difference reflected in the price?

again at this level, there are going to be such minor indectable visual differences that without possibly seeing them side by side and trying to pick, you are relegated to find something else to split hairs on. at almost a grand in price difference, there is no need to go head hunting (...for hairs...to split)

 

[strmrdr]

I like the GOG stone its a nice tight GOG classic and its h&a where the WF stone isnt.


Crown angle, ° 34.50 34.36 34.66 0.30
Pavilion angle, ° 40.77 40.71 40.83 0.12

.3 variation on the crown and .12 on the pavilion

vs..

.5 on the pavillion .4 on the crown

h&a vs not

They arent in the same cut class.

Id go with the better cut diamond.

 

[pricescope]

I'm in awkward position as a moderator who actually don't care which diamond (ideal H&A or an average cut) and from what vendor (advertiser or not especially since both GOG and WF are pricescope advertiser) Arcane will buy....

However, I couldn't help noticing that Storm is on the mission putting down any WF stone recently and recommend GOG

What's going on?

In this case 0.4 and 0.2 degree crown and pavilion difference (still great proportions) seem worth $800

Does it in the consumer interest Storm?

I think consumer when stumbling into such close call should try to compare different stones for her/him self. Many people actually prefer a steeper crown which can produce more fire and show a bit more of the diamond above the girdle.

Both vendor can ship their stones to an independent appraiser who can arrange this comparison. I think that would be fair advise without pushing anybody toward specific vendor(s).

Sorry for intervening.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/10/2006 11:11:26 AM
Author: strmrdr

h&a vs not

They arent in the same cut class.

Id go with the better cut diamond.

Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree that one cut is better than the other.

Both diamonds score a 1A on the AGA grading chart - you just can't do better than that. Since neither diamond was submitted for an AGS DQD, neither stone can claim to be an AGS0 or even an AGS0 equivalent. While both stones may display cut proportions that fall within AGS0 cut proportion parameters, neither has the paper to support it.

As for H&A.....that speaks to the pattern. And, since the term "H&A" doesn't come with universally applied standards, it's kinda meaningless to debate one stone's worthiness as H&A over another unless they are both being judged the the exact same standard.

From what I see, these two stones are truly a toss-up. I don't see anything that makes me feel like the GOG stone is worth nearly a thousand dollars more (10%!) than the other.

That said, I don't want to pay more for invisible clarity, and some others do, so it really comes down to what the original poster values.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/10/2006 12:07:44 PM
Author: Pricescope
I''m in awkward position as a moderator who actually don''t care which diamond (ideal H&A or an average cut) and from what vendor (advertiser or not especially since both GOG and WF are pricescope advertiser) Arcane will buy....

However, I couldn''t help noticing that Storm is on the mission putting down any WF stone recently and recommend GOG

What''s going on?

In this case 0.4 and 0.2 degree crown and pavilion difference (still great proportions) seem worth $800

Does it in the consumer interest Storm?

I think consumer when stumbling into such close call should try to compare different stones for her/him self. Many people actually prefer a steeper crown which can produce more fire and show a bit more of the diamond above the girdle.

Both vendor can ship their stones to an independent appraiser who can arrange this comparison. I think that would be fair advise without pushing anybody toward specific vendor(s).

Sorry for intervening.

1: it would have been nice if you had contacted me in private if you had a concern.
2: just today I recommended a WF stone as the winner over a gog stone.
3: facts are facts ... its tighter and an h&a vs a not as tight non-h&a
4: belle has been slamming every gog stone in sight lately and praising WF and I dont see ya yelling at her.

If you want to discuss this you know how to contact me, doing this on board isnt smart, if you like delete your post and this one and we will talk in private.

 

[pricescope]

Storm, don't get it personally. It was not my intention to slap you or anybody else.

I don't care whether you or any other member recommends any stone or any vendor from BlueNile to Zale's or Costco or NY diamond district.

I believe that hundreds and thousands of lurkers/readers who never post here are able to see things through and make their own decision.

Their reaction on what is written here depends on the quality of the information posted as well as the trust to each posters/member opinion/preferences.

Obviously, no-one is able to follow every single post of each member here. However, random selection of the tone and quality of the information can create certain perception, trust and respect to each member. Even if you did recommend other vendors, my post above caused by my perception of the content, tone and quality of your posts (no disrespect). Belle, on another hand, never appeared to be putting down any GOG stone.

No disrespect or offense is meant but lately your posts are very self contained and you give very bold advices about diamonds you never seen and assuming other consumers should have your taste of the diamond appearance and I'm not the first one who noticed that.

I think it would be more appropriate for the respectful member of the community as you are to care giving a bit more deeper explanation of your preferences and admit that this is not the only combination of that people might like depending on taste, vision, age, and other personal factors.

As we saw on own small survey in the Central Park, people don't see much difference when crown and pavilion angles vary in rather wide range. I think we should give people a freedom to compare diamonds themselves or with independent expert they trust who can look at the live diamonds instead of pushing them with our own preferences of vendors, proportions, color or clarity.

Carefully written advice would benefit us all: newbies, regular members, and experts. It gives more credibility to each writer and community as a whole.

Please take it as friendly advise to the long time member of our community whose contribution we value very much and you know that.

Finally, let me underline, we don't care what-so-ever what vendors or diamonds you or anybody else recommend here as long as it is genuine opinion. You don't have to recommend or criticise something/somebody to please us or anybody else here.

Hope it clarifies it and sorry again for intervention.

 

[Peerless]

The GOG Stone http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/1937/ if looking at the helium scan seems to be a very tight stone. However when you look at the sarin scan, the pa & ca vary a lot more. What is more accurate, the helium scan or the sarin scan?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/10/2006 2:39:32 PM
Author: Peerless
The GOG Stone http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/1937/ if looking at the helium scan seems to be a very tight stone. However when you look at the sarin scan, the pa & ca vary a lot more. What is more accurate, the helium scan or the sarin scan?

helium by a large margin

 

[Kim N]

I would also go for the cheaper one. If you pay by wire with the PS discount on the WF stone ($9116), the price difference will be $727.

 

[belle]

Date: 8/10/2006 12:24:44 PM
Author: strmrdr

4: belle has been slamming every gog stone in sight lately and praising WF and I dont see ya yelling at her.

strm, i will gladly admit that i sing praises for wf. i have made several purchases from them and am extremely happy with their product and service, so i feel it is fair to recommend them based on my personal experience.
i am sorry to hear that you feel i am ''slamming every gog stone in sight''. that is definitely not my intention. would you mind pointing me to all of these threads so i may see where what i said could be miscontrued as ''slamming'' and perhaps change my wording in the future. that would be very helpful in clearing up any misunderstandings.