lost ring :( / finding a replacement

[lostring14]

Hey all,

I was on here many moons ago doing The Search. Long story short, my wife's engagement ring has gone missing, hasn't turned up, and I must know find a replacement (luckily we have insurance and it's fully covered - let this be a lesson to you all!). I honestly can't believe that I'm actually looking at things like HCA, girdle size, and florescence again. D'oh!

Anyway... I believe I've found the diamond to replace it. Without getting into specs, it matches everything I'm looking for in the replacement in terms of color, clarity, cost, and the vast majority of specs we all spend too much time thinking about, and I just want to get a few opinions on things:

1. Previous diamond's HCA was 1.5 EX/EX/EX/VG. Current one is 1.0 EX/EX/EX/EX. Not sure why I'm "worried" about this, but there you have it - a bit of a difference, not sure if it really matters.

2. Previous was AGS 000. Current one is GIA EX/EX/EX. I was so nit-picky at the time about finding an AGS 000 - much easier to find a GIA EX/EX/EX just due to sheer numbers. Should I be concerned I'm missing out on anything? Mostly in my head, I'd guess.

3. Previous had a table size of 5%6; current one is 59%. A *little* on the high side, I guess, and from what I understand going from 56 to 59 means gaining a bit more Brilliance and losing a bit of Fire. Yet, HCA still has me at EX on all levels at 1.0, so I'm guessing to my non-expert eye I probably wouldn't even notice.

4. Previous depth was 61.8%; current one is 60.0% - and from what I understand makes this particular diamond have a larger diameter than some others a bit bigger in ct weight, so it would "show" relatively big. A good problem to have.

Anyway, I'm probably hoping to pull the rigger on this in the next 24 hours, lest someone else grab it before me. Would appreciate any thoughts based on the above. I'm assuming I will end up with a fantastic stone regardless, and that a lot of this is just in my head, but good to get some confirmation on things. Many thanks!

 

[yssie]

I'm sorry

Can you post the GIA report number and exact carat weight (X.XX)? We need a lot more info to be of any use to you.
If you have the old stone's AGS report number and carat weight as well, or pics/scans, we can help you compare.

 

[lostring14]

Okay, I'll come clean with all the info. Note that I'm upgrading slightly in size, from 1.16 to 1.22. Hopefully this does the trick as far as info needed - let me know, and thank you very much.

Previous:

AGS 0007290103
Report Type: Diamond Quality™ Document
Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 6.69 - 6.74 x 4.16 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Light Performance: 0
Proportion Factors: 0
Finish: 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Color Grade: AGS 1.5 (G)
Clarity Grade: AGS 3 (VS1)
Carat Weight: 1.158
Fluorescence: Negligible
Comments:
Table: 56.0%
Crown Angle: 35.2
Crown Height: 15.7%
Girdle: Faceted, 1.0% to 3.6%
Pavilion Angle: 40.7
Pavilion Depth: 42.9%
Star Length: 51%
Lower Girdle Length: 79%
Total Depth: 61.8%
Culet: Pointed


Considering as replacement:

GIA 2146502483
Round Brilliant
Measurements 6.92 - 6.96 x 4.16 mm
Carat Weight 1.22 carat
Color Grade G
Clarity Grade VS1
Cut Grade Excellent
Depth 60.0 %
Table 59 %
Crown Angle 34.0°
Crown Height 13.5%
Pavilion Angle 40.6°
Pavilion Depth 43.0%
Star Length 50%
Lower Half 80%
Girdle Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted, 3.5%
Culet None
Polish Excellent
Symmetry Excellent
Fluorescence None
Clarity characteristics Crystal, Cloud, Needle

 

[JulieN]

HCA with GIA's rounded angles gives score of 1.0, all excellent, and in range for GIA and AGS top grades.

HCA with rounded height percentages gives score of 1.2, all excellent, and just a bit shallow for GIA and AGS top grades.

If is worth taking a look at.

 

[yssie]

Replacement: https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2146502483&weight=1.22#
Original: http://www.agslab.com/reportTypes/pdqd.php?StoneID=0007290103&Weight=1.158&D=1

No red flags.
I honestly wouldn't worry about the slight differences in proportions. The stones will have different personalities but objectively, just from the numbers, neither is "better" than the other, just different! HCA absolutely does not matter here - it's a weeding tool, not a selection tool, and both these stones "pass", and all "passing" tells you is that they are both likely worth further investigation. So ditto Julie - definitely worth investigating further and taking a look at

 

[lostring14]

Thank you both for your comments and affirmations that this is indeed worth taking a look at. I am likely to pull the trigger any moment. Will report back once I have it in hand!

 

[TC1987]

The replacement you're looking at is a 60/60 diamond. The first one has higher crown, steeper crown angle, smaller table. It was probably also a hearts and arrows. The one you are contemplating buying might not resemble the other diamond at all. If I had a superideal nicely patterned H&A and it got replaced by a "traditional" cut 60/60, I might very irate because I would not consider that comparable at all. But ymmv.

 

[lostring14]

The previous one being replaced was not a H&A. Close, but not labeled / branded as such. I have actually requested a H&A image just to "see" it as well as an idealscope image. TBD since just asked and have not received yet.

Could you be a bit more detailed about what you mean by a 60/60 diamond -- I'm assuming you're referring to the 59/60 table depth the potential replacement has -- vs. the 56/61.8 the original had. On the one hand, you say it might affect things notably; on the other hand, the previous posters say not to worry as much about the proportional differences, and that they might just have different personalities. I am not looking to replace it exactly -- just looking to replace it qualitatively -- i.e., it's "just as good" as the previous in how we like it, even if a bit different. I suppose that will be up to the eye to tell - though we won't be able to compare directly, of course.

If it matters, this is going into a Gelin Abaci TR-040 tension set platinum ring. Random image online here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cjordan/93986175/

One of the things I thought might be "good" about the replacement is that the particular dimensions make it have a wider diameter than some of the 1.25s out there, so at 1.22 it would have a lot of bang for the buck from a top down size perspective, while still having excellent cut qualities all around (supposedly). And, as a layman, I'm not sure I'd be able to tell the difference in how they perform side by side - who knows.

Thanks again for the ongoing opinions. Wasn't able to order it yet, so I have until Monday or so to decide (or wait)...

 

[lostring14]

Quick update. I've done some additional searching and may have found two options that are far more in line with the original diamond in terms of exact cut and proportions, save for an increase in size (original was 1.16, options are 1.21 and 1.26), and in the case of one of them, an increase in clarity (from VS1 to VVS2). If anyone has any opinions on these, I'd welcome them. HCA on the first one is 1.5, and on the second is 1.3.

As a reminder, here's the original (1.5 on HCA):
http://www.agslab.com/reportTypes/pdqd.php?StoneID=0007290103&Weight=1.158&D=1

The first replacement option is here:
https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=5151409911&weight=1.21#

And the second replacement option is below in terms of specs - don't have the GIA exact number so can't pull up the full file:

GIA
Round Brilliant
Measurements 6.93 - 6.97 x 4.28 mm
Carat Weight 1.26 carat
Color Grade G
Clarity Grade VS1
Cut Grade Excellent
Depth 61.6 %
Table 56 %
Crown Angle 34.5°
Pavilion Angle 40.8°
Girdle Thin to Medium, Faceted, 3.0%
Culet None
Polish Excellent
Symmetry Excellent
Fluorescence None
Clarity characteristics Crystal, Cloud, Needle

There's about a $500 difference in price (1.26 higher), but both are within budget. Thank you!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The GIA 1.26 posted last looks great!!! I would want it more than the other you posted. I certainly would rather have a larger G VS1 over VVS because the difference in clarity is invisible at that level.

 

[MissGotRocks]

The GIA 1.26 posted last looks great!!! I would want it more than the other you posted. I certainly would rather have a larger G VS1 over VVS because the difference in clarity is invisible at that level.

Completely agree with DS on this one. I would much rather have this stone than the first one you posted. The proportions are more balanced to me and closer to what you are replacing. I hope that wherever you order the stone from you have a great return policy - just in case it isn't eye pleasing to either you or your wife.

 

[yssie]

Quick update. I've done some additional searching and may have found two options that are far more in line with the original diamond in terms of exact cut and proportions, save for an increase in size (original was 1.16, options are 1.21 and 1.26), and in the case of one of them, an increase in clarity (from VS1 to VVS2). If anyone has any opinions on these, I'd welcome them. HCA on the first one is 1.5, and on the second is 1.3.

As a reminder, here's the original (1.5 on HCA):
http://www.agslab.com/reportTypes/pdqd.php?StoneID=0007290103&Weight=1.158&D=1

The first replacement option is here:
https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=5151409911&weight=1.21#

And the second replacement option is below in terms of specs - don't have the GIA exact number so can't pull up the full file:

GIA
Round Brilliant
Measurements 6.93 - 6.97 x 4.28 mm
Carat Weight 1.26 carat
Color Grade G
Clarity Grade VS1
Cut Grade Excellent
Depth 61.6 %
Table 56 %
Crown Angle 34.5°
Pavilion Angle 40.8°
Girdle Thin to Medium, Faceted, 3.0%
Culet None
Polish Excellent
Symmetry Excellent
Fluorescence None
Clarity characteristics Crystal, Cloud, Needle

There's about a $500 difference in price (1.26 higher), but both are within budget. Thank you!

This one looks fine as well.
Have you confirmed that this stone will be eligible for tension setting? I know that vendors of those specific styles have requirements about girdle thickness, inclusion type and placement (though with a VS1 of this size I would think you'd be fine)...

I do disagree with some of the previous posts about one thing - I honestly think either stone would be equally fine from the info present - or rather, there's no way to objectively state that one is better than the other without more info (pics, detailed proportions scan) than what's been provided on the report.
To clarify - yes, there will be differences in behaviour and appearance because of the differences in proportions, but IMO for that to appreciably influence your decision-making YOU need to know what sorts of nuances you're looking for, otherwise I think we approach dangerous territory re. pushing unsolicited personal preferences onto you.
(And FTR I prefer the second stone just by the proportions as well, because those are my preferences...)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I felt like the second one was closer in appearance to the original. I am sure well cut 60/60 stones can be very beautiful, but the larger table might bother me if I were used to 56. But 99% of the world might not even be aware of the difference, I suppose!

 

[yssie]

I felt like the second one was closer in appearance to the original. I am sure well cut 60/60 stones can be very beautiful, but the larger table might bother me if I were used to 56. But 99% of the world might not even be aware of the difference, I suppose!

Good point!

 

[lostring14]

Thanks so much for the additional comments. I have requested idealscope images of the 1.26 and should have in the next 48 hours. Assuming all checks out, I will be ordering it for a hands- and eyes-on review.

 

[lostring14]

And boom goes the dynamite:



This is the 1.26 referenced above. Looks pretty darn good to me. The overall symmetry within the table looks a *little* bit off to me (the center bit is shifted "up" a little in the image), but I think that is likely explained away by minor angles / tilt in how it's set up for the photo (correct me if I'm wrong - the clean, normal image does not have this issue, so I think I'm good). I'm assuming anything "against" this stone would be nitpicky and not really anything a layperson like myself (or my wife) would really notice - and given that the specs are really, really, really, really close to what we're trying to replace, this seems like the one to go with...

Any final thoughts before I pull the trigger? Thank you!

 

[lostring14]

Shall I assume no news is good news? I'll be calling to make the purchase shortly...

 

[JulieN]

It's fine.

 

[lostring14]

Thanks, JulieN. While "It's fine" isn't exactly a glowing review, I appreciate having at least one other opinion of someone who doesn't see any red flags. It's ordered on its way here.

 

[JulieN]

It is foooine.

 

[lostring14]

That's better!

 

[yssie]

Thanks, JulieN. While "It's fine" isn't exactly a glowing review, I appreciate having at least one other opinion of someone who doesn't see any red flags. It's ordered on its way here.

Two word reviews = nothing to nitpick over = good news!

 

[MissGotRocks]

Looks great - I think you've found a winner!!!!!