Losing Fire/Brilliance with a 40.9/34.9 Stone???

[MedicalMystery21]

Should I be concerned with this diamonds' proportions? They are BARELY in line with AGS excellent and although they are classified as an ACA by WhiteFlash, I don't want to be the bottom of the barrel ACA... I have heard that the steeper angles might sacrifice a bit of the diamonds fire and brilliance... What are your opinions on the matter? Is this something that will be noticeable? I don't want this stone to appear dull by any means... Any advice is welcome!






This is the stone I am considering:
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3186645.htm

These are some others for comparison:
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=3408381,3372531,3372532,3186645,3189859

Thanks!

 

[hearts-arrows_girl]

Why don't you just look for another stone that you feel is more in the "Super Ideal" range. I get what you mean by it just barely being in there. Heck, you could look at a G VS2 and get a bigger stone with numbers you feel more comfortable with. I agree, having an ACA is really something special and you want the most bang for you buck! BTW, I would bet that stone is a beauty, so don't rule it out yet!

 

[Karl_K]

I have heard that the steeper angles might sacrifice a bit of the diamonds fire and brilliance...

Where did you hear that about those angles?
They are well within the accepted zone and well within the ags0 zone.

 

[MedicalMystery21]

I have heard that the steeper angles might sacrifice a bit of the diamonds fire and brilliance...

Where did you hear that about those angles?
They are well within the accepted zone and well within the ags0 zone.

If I am not mistaken, if the diamond was a 41 it would no longer be classified as ideal by the AGS. I just don't know if there is a sweet spot and 40.9 might be pushing the envelope a bit? Not to mention the HCA score wasn't all that impressive (1.8, very good, very good, very good, excellent). I know the HCA is not an accurate way to measure a diamonds character, but the fact that it docked the diamond in three categories has to be significant?

 

[luvdajules]

For me, I wouldn't be concerned about A CA from WF. If it is indeed "borderline", it wouldn't necessarily be visible. What does WF have to say about your concerns? It looks like you several good options readily available. So that's nice!

 

[Karl_K]

I have heard that the steeper angles might sacrifice a bit of the diamonds fire and brilliance...

Where did you hear that about those angles?
They are well within the accepted zone and well within the ags0 zone.

If I am not mistaken, if the diamond was a 41 it would no longer be classified as ideal by the AGS. I just don't know if there is a sweet spot and 40.9 might be pushing the envelope a bit? Not to mention the HCA score wasn't all that impressive (1.8, very good, very good, very good, excellent). I know the HCA is not an accurate way to measure a diamonds character, but the fact that it docked the diamond in three categories has to be significant?

With the right crown and lowers ags0 can go well above 41 degrees, too far over some times.
I draw the line around 41.2 with the right crown and lowers and a very hard no go over 41.4.
34/41 with a 55-56 table and 77%+ lowers is one of my favorite combos.
33.5/41.2 with 80% lowers is at the outer edge of my tolerance.

To be honest I don't pay any attention to anything but the number on the hca most of the time and sometimes not at all if I have real is/aset images and other knowledge/information.
With out knowing the lowers which it does not take into account you can not accurately predict the rest.
The hca also has a bias against pavilions over 41 that in my opinion in some cases is behind the times.
There are some hard limits over 41 with some crown angle and lower combinations where things fall off a lot.
That lead to the anti-41 bias.
Technology has advanced enough these days to separate the great from the not so great in that range.
But with the gia rounding just the numbers on the report has thrown things back a bit when no is/aset images are available by making it impossible to separate them by numbers.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

There is ZERO concern about that diamond! It is superideal and meets Whiteflash's strict requirements for the ACA brand. It is absolutely fine. In fact, all eyeclean ACA's are fine. No such thing as "bottom of the barrel ACA"!

 

[MedicalMystery21]

Thanks for all the reassurance.. I am in contact with WF and I hope to get a video of the diamond next to some of its fellow companions so I can see if I can tell a difference (which I'm sure I won't).. I guess it just comes down to a mental thing, I would rather take comfort knowing that the diamond was cut right in the sweet spot of AGS0 and isn't on the border. I'm sure this drives most of you mad because like you said, there's really no such thing. Anyway, I will keep looking. I found another FVS1 ACA.. It seems to be cut a bit differently and I think I like the way the ASET and IdealScope images look. I don't want this to turn into a "pick my diamond for me" thread.. But any advice is welcome. The second stone is a bit bigger and carries a higher price tag (about 2k more)...







If I can get WF to take the one on the left down to an even 12k I might pull the trigger. I just think the images look cleaner... I think the hearts look a bit more symmetric too. Any thoughts out there?

Thanks a lot!

 

[MarionC]

Personally I would definitely got for the left one. It looks more precisely cut in all photos. Beautiful.

 

[MarionC]

Personally I would definitely go for the left one. It looks more precisely cut in all photos. Beautiful.

 

[hearts-arrows_girl]

That 1.17 seems really nice!

 

[teobdl]

If you have the 2k to spend, get the bigger one. You will absolutely not be able to notice a difference in anything but size.

You can also go down slightly in color and clarity to get an even bigger size.