Lucida Dilemma

[G Weldon]

Alright. This site has been very helpful in the past, and I''d like to get some thoughts on these two lucidas that I''m considering (it''s been 3 months I''ve been looking now).

Carat: 3.03
Color: F
Clarity: VVS2
Measurement: 8.55 x 8.55 x 5.72mm
Total Depth: 66.9%
Table Diameter: 62%
Crown Angle: 34%
Pavilion: 50.8%
Girdle: Thin to Medium
Culet: None
Symmetry: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Fluorescene: None

Carat: 2.52
Color: F
Clarity: IF
Measurement: 8.22 x 7.95 x 5.30mm
Total Depth: 66.7%
Table: 57%
Crown: 36%
Pavilion: 50.3%
Girdle: Thin to Medium
Culet: Very Small
Symmetry: Very Good
Polish: Very Good
Fluorescence: None


I''m torn. Thanks. The price difference between doesn''t matter - I just want to go with the one that is "cut" better. I know it''s more difficult to tell with the square shaped stones. Thanks!

 

[G Weldon]

No expert advice? Please?

 

[hey joey]

go for 3.03cts
very few stones get an excellent symm & polish rating.
good luck

 

[cflutist]

If I am not mistaken, "Lucida" is a proprietary Tiffany cut and thus you will find few "experts" on PS who know what the ideal specs should be for that cut. If you had asked about a RB, then you would have been flooded with responses.

Of the two, the 3.03 is perfectly square and does have a better polish/symmetry rating.

 

[reena]

cflutist is right i believe, and as you noted in your post a few weeks back, GWeldon, tiffany apparently won't give out information about the ideal cut parameters for a lucida.




in any event, if all other things were equal i'd choose the extra half carat in weight over the jump from VVS2 to IF any day of the week and twice on sundays. you'll never see a visual difference between the two clarity grades with your naked eye.

good luck.

 

[G Weldon]

Thanks for the advice. I will admit, I like the fact that the 3.03 is perfectly square. Those are hard to find. The other one has a slightly higher crown, which I like, but the extra 1/2 carat is something to consider. Thanks again!

 

[Rhino]

I believe you have the percentages/angles mixed up. While I have not had the opportunity to appraise a Lucida loose I have indeed inspected many Lucere's which are very very similar and I am quite familiar with their proportions and those that produce the highest brilliance. Could you possibly find out what the crown heights and pavilion depths are on these stones instead of the angles (which I believe are in your post)? If so I may be able to be of some assistance.




Regards,

 

[G Weldon]

What I provided was the crown angle and the pavilion depth percentage. I don't have the other data until I get the GIAs... which will be tomorrow. I only had the Tiffany reports right now. I'll also get to see where the inclusions are on the VVS2 stone, which may or may not make the decision easy for me.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 10/25/2004 1:28:56 AM G Weldon wrote:

I'll also get to see where the inclusions are on the VVS2 stone, which may or may not make the decision easy for me. ----------------

You may see the dots on the cert (if mentioned), but a dot on paper can only be times larger than a VVS-size inclusion. Unless the grade on paper has some meaning for you aside what that diamond is, the clarity garde does not make a difference here .

Just my 0.2 though.

It is not clear if you did see these or not. The appearence of the stones could be rather different despite the expectation of consistency from a branded cut.

 

[reena]

yeah, not sure why inclusion location should make any difference in a VVS.

 

[Nicrez]

Hey G Weldon! Welcome to Pricescope!!!

From the numbers you posted, the first stone (the 3.0+ ct) had a larger table than depth, which will give a slightly greater surface area to the stone, as well as being higher in carat size. As such, your 3+ct will look bigger than the IF (2+ct) stone.

When you have money to spend on a 2+ct Tiffany ring, then I say BIGGER!!!! Being a proprietary cut, they will be the ones who gaurd their numbers quite protectively, so even Rhino (the shaped stone PRO) may not give you the perfect answer, but maybe your eye can tell you which stone is nicer.

When it comes down to numbers, they are only as helpful as someone who has never seen the stone, and doesn't want to waste their time seeing EVERY stone. Once you have the stones in front of you, numbers shouldn't matter as much as your eyes.

I still say GO BIGGER, because even before COLOR, that's the most noticeable trait you can have on a stone. Bragging rights are only there if you wear your certificate on your t-shirt, or carry a loupe and ask Gemologists to see it. Otherwise, average joes see BIG and WHITE and PRETTY. Just say Tiffany's, and people are already impressed.

God bless, and enjoy that monster! Please post pictures, I just love a good Lucida!!!

 

[diagem]

The 3.03 ONLY.

a- bigger looking diamond.
b- If you want a flawless diamond, get D color only
(thats when you know you have the best!!!!
c- EX EX very dificult to achieve...

I prefer a 57% table over 62% but they are both in the range of the Tiffany quality and unoticable by the untrained eye...
Price wise, my oppinion that the 3 carat should cost about 1/3 more than the 2.5 carat. Its worth it, youre in a different league with the 3 carat.

So dont be confused, and good luck and enjoy...

 

[G Weldon]

Thanks for the advice. I'll let everyone know what I went with - it's looking like the 3.03. The 3.03 is slightly darker than the 2.52. I think it's because it's a larger stone because they are both Fs. The saleswoman showed me a 5 carat D and it didn't look bright white, so I think the larger the stone, the slightly darker it appears, no?

 

[diagem]

No way, ask the sales person to show you all the Lucida samples in a normal enviromental light, like a natural light.

They should not stop you from this option...

The bigger the stone if its a f color or a smaller f there shouldnt be a diferent shade. the different setting can change something but the diamond should both be the same color to your eyes....

Good luck, and send us a pic.

 

[solange]

----------------
On 10/25/2004 9:33:21 AM diagem wrote:

The 3.03 ONLY.

a- bigger looking diamond.
b- If you want a flawless diamond, get D color only
(thats when you know you have the best!!!!
c- EX EX very dificult to achieve...

I prefer a 57% table over 62% but they are both in the range of the Tiffany quality and unoticable by the untrained eye...
Price wise, my oppinion that the 3 carat should cost about 1/3 more than the 2.5 carat. Its worth it, youre in a different league with the 3 carat.

So dont be confused, and good luck and enjoy...

----------------

Are there no D color diamonds that are not flawless? I thought the D refers to color, not clarity

 

[diagem]

read my writing again, youll understand whan you want the best get D COLOR / Internaly Flawless or Flawless Clarity

Thats when you know you have the best colorless
DIAMOND.

is it readable now?

 

[alexah]

I'd consider this 3.5 G VVS1 that signed pieces is selling for $66K - but that's just me

LINK

 

[G Weldon]

I have to admit that the G VVS1 stone looks nice, but I really didn't want to dip below E, and now I'm already at F. I did try on a 3.5 carat H, VVS1 ring a couple of days ago. Big is great, but I don't really want to sacrifice too much quality for that "bling." I was thinking that the stones that I'm considering are a happy medium.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 10/25/2004 12:09:20 PM G Weldon wrote:

I was thinking that the stones that I'm considering are a happy medium. ----------------

Do you hear the chucke from accross the Atlantic

?
I would not worry for size starting around 3 carats, or for 'quality' roundabout F/VVS. Few would, and I am not sure I understand why.

Somehow I think that when you say "the 3.03 is darker" this is some optical effect (either due to the setting, or the gem's proportions or both) rather than the tint of the stone. Looking down to those numbers, the proportions are different enough (see the pav. angles) to suggest some visible difference.

Can you play with these two a bit at Tiffany's until one of them doesn't let go? No matter what the numbers and grades read like, the diamond on finger should be more relevant than the papers, IMO.

Can't wait to hear about the outcome of course.

 

[G Weldon]

I looked at both again today for at least an hour. The 2.52 looks, at least in my mind, a little "brighter" because of the way it is cut. The 3.03 is cut a smidgen deeper, has a larger table, and a slightly smaller crown angle. I think that is why it looks darker. I didn't mean that it looks to be a G or H. Ironically, there was another gemologist from a different store there today, and when I asked his opinion, he said that the proportions of the smaller stone looked better. When I picked a couple of random people in the store, I got mixed opinions. It's tough to tell the difference, but I still think that the larger one didn't flash as brightly as the smaller one. I'm giving it a couple of days to decide... Frankly, I'd rather go with the larger one because it's perfectly square, the band is larger, and it sits higher--but, I don't want to be looking at my ring and thinking this one doesn't look as good as the other one. I know it also helps when you're not comparing them side by side, which you'll never do again once you've made the decision.

Thanks for everyone's help. I might be taking this a little too far...

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 10/25/2004 8:33:55 PM G Weldon wrote:


Frankly, I'd rather go with the larger one because it's perfectly square, the band is larger, and it sits higher--but, I don't want to be looking at my ring and thinking this one doesn't look as good as the other one.

----------------

I know how the measurements read, but both are 'square' even by GIA's conservative definition (less than 1.05 L/w). I am not very strict about this by default, but does the 2.52 look non-square?

The other comments cited seem to be about the ring rather than the stone. It may be possible to set the diamond higher, I would think, even if the width of the band is not changeable.

Also, are these bound to be the only two options ? No third Lucida in sight ?

Best of luck!

 

[moremoremore]

I don't think you're taking it too far at all...it's an important purchase. I was going to say that the GIA cert doesn't give you any crown and pavillion info but you already know that b/c you went to look today. I was also going to say that a darker stone is probably not as well cut as the brighter stone. There really is no way for me to give you an informed opinion on the cut...I'd love a bscope or lightscope image at a minimum...BUT, since that can't happen..trust your eyes. Based on the numbers, I'd go with the 3ct...but numbers don't tell the story...this is evident by the fact that it's not as bright as the 2.5. I wouldn't settle. I'd keep looking until you get the right size and cut that you're looking for...

 

[finerthings]

I have a rectangular Lucida, not as large as the stones you are looking at (1.79ct), but we were faced with a similar situation. One of the stones was a good .25ct larger, but it did not have the same visual presence of our the smaller one. We both immediately noticed how the 1.79ct sparkled and looked so lively...it even appeared to be as large as the bigger diamond. I think you should not look at the numbers anymore, you're driving yourself nuts, go with your eyes...even hide the tag on the rings so you don't know which is which. Good luck and enjoy!!!!

 

[G Weldon]

I think I've looked at about 10 of the Lucidas pretty seriously thus far. I didn't settle for what they had in the store--I've had rings brought in from several of their other stores. We've been looking for rings on and off since last October, but recently, in the last three months, I've been in the store at least twice a week to keep looking at them. I rejected the others for one reason or another. I don't think I can go wrong with either one of the rings that I'm considering. Thanks for all of the input!!!

 

[reena]

----------------
On 10/25/2004 8:33:55 PM G Weldon wrote:





I looked at both again today for at least an hour. The 2.52 looks, at least in my mind, a little 'brighter' because of the way it is cut. The 3.03 is cut a smidgen deeper, has a larger table, and a slightly smaller crown angle. I think that is why it looks darker. I didn't mean that it looks to be a G or H. Ironically, there was another gemologist from a different store there today, and when I asked his opinion, he said that the proportions of the smaller stone looked better. When I picked a couple of random people in the store, I got mixed opinions. It's tough to tell the difference, but I still think that the larger one didn't flash as brightly as the smaller one. I'm giving it a couple of days to decide... Frankly, I'd rather go with the larger one because it's perfectly square, the band is larger, and it sits higher--but, I don't want to be looking at my ring and thinking this one doesn't look as good as the other one. I know it also helps when you're not comparing them side by side, which you'll never do again once you've made the decision.

Thanks for everyone's help. I might be taking this a little too far...
----------------

you're not taking it too far. it's an important purchase. forget what i said before and go for the 2.5 if it's the brighter, sparklier diamond.

 

[Rhino]

Hey G,

Good to see you coming along. My educated guess was that the 2.52ct F would have been a brighter stone due to the smaller table and steeper crown angles but again ... an educated guess. Your report confirmed it though.

The darkness you are observing in the larger stone is certainly not due to the color but perhaps boils down to an issue of contrast (too many darks, not enough lights). What lighting condition were you observing the 3.03ct under when you thought it appeared on the darker side?

 

[G Weldon]

I viewed the rings in brighter light (near the window), store lights, and lighting in a small room (still in the store). It wasn't just me; my boyfriend thought the larger one looked darker also. Others in the store couldn't tell the difference, but if I can tell - well, that's not good. I'll be looking at them again later this week.