my final advice-seeking thread I promise... please help me choose

[johngalt2004]

I know I have hogged the board a little lately but I am almost done. I am down to two choices, and I think it is maybe a very easy call but maybe not because of price difference... I would like input and advice:

1.17
SI1 (eye clean - a "good SI1" according to a clarity-picky jeweler)
H
56.8 table
60.2 depth ?!
34.3 CA
40.9 PA
1.3 HCA
AGA 1-A
Textbook H&A according to jeweler
ags 0 light performance
$6800


1.19
SI2 (eye clean - hideable white inclusion on the side)
H
57.7 table
61.1 depth
33.6 CA
41.2 PA ?!
2.6 HCA
AGA 1-B
kinda H&A according to jeweler - inferior H&A compared to above
ags 0 light performance
$6100


Right now the 1.19 is set. I did look at it and my wife looked a it and liked it - so that is the default. But I balked at the steepish pavilion and my jeweler came through with another choice... but at a cost. But he will reset for no additional cost if I prefer the 1.17.

Is the cost difference consistent with a one step clarity upgrade? Or is it likely a steeper hike due to a superior make perhaps?

Is this a no-brainer for the better HCA score? Or is the price difference worth taking the 2.6 HCA? The jeweler thinks they look the same faceup, except the 1.17 has better arrows and hearts. HCA scores... hmm if the PA on the 1.19 had been 41.1 instead of 41.2 I wouldn''t have even sent the guy after another stone probably. Very unclear on the diff between "VG" and "EXC" on any given HCA element... but the 1.17 scores all exc except scintillation. The 1.19 is vg across the board.

2.6 HCA vs 1.3 HCA... Would most of you take a high dollar bet that you could tell those scores apart with bare eyes in real life? Should I weight the HCA difference significantly in this decision or consider those numbers a "near wash"?

The cost difference isn''t an issue, except to the extent it might make me feel like a chump if I pay too much extra for invisible benefits.

I swear this is the last time I''ll solicit advice for this purchase! Sorry some of this has been mentioned before but the candidates have changed and are solidly down to this final final two... once and for all.

Thanks,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/28/2007 9:41:44 AM
Author:johngalt2004
I know I have hogged the board a little lately but I am almost done. I am down to two choices, and I think it is maybe a very easy call but maybe not because of price difference... I would like input and advice:

1.17
SI1 (eye clean - a ''good SI1'' according to a clarity-picky jeweler)
H
56.8 table
60.2 depth ?!
34.3 CA
40.9 PA
1.3 HCA
AGA 1-A
Textbook H&A according to jeweler
ags 0 light performance
$6800


1.19
SI2 (eye clean - hideable white inclusion on the side)
H
57.7 table
61.1 depth
33.6 CA
41.2 PA ?!
2.6 HCA
AGA 1-B
kinda H&A according to jeweler - inferior H&A compared to above
ags 0 light performance
$6100


Right now the 1.19 is set. I did look at it and my wife looked a it and liked it - so that is the default. But I balked at the steepish pavilion and my jeweler came through with another choice... but at a cost. But he will reset for no additional cost if I prefer the 1.17.

Is the cost difference consistent with a one step clarity upgrade? Or is it likely a steeper hike due to a superior make perhaps?

Is this a no-brainer for the better HCA score? Or is the price difference worth taking the 2.6 HCA? The jeweler thinks they look the same faceup, except the 1.17 has better arrows and hearts. HCA scores... hmm if the PA on the 1.19 had been 41.1 instead of 41.2 I wouldn''t have even sent the guy after another stone probably. Very unclear on the diff between ''VG'' and ''EXC'' on any given HCA element... but the 1.17 scores all exc except scintillation. The 1.19 is vg across the board.

2.6 HCA vs 1.3 HCA... Would most of you take a high dollar bet that you could tell those scores apart with bare eyes in real life? Should I weight the HCA difference significantly in this decision or consider those numbers a ''near wash''?

The cost difference isn''t an issue, except to the extent it might make me feel like a chump if I pay too much extra for invisible benefits.

I swear this is the last time I''ll solicit advice for this purchase! Sorry some of this has been mentioned before but the candidates have changed and are solidly down to this final final two... once and for all.

Thanks,

A 33.6/41.2 is going to give comparable optics to a 34.3/40.9 which is why they both have AGS ideal light performance. Side by side you''d see no difference. The HCA in this instance is not accurately indicating what you would *see* so don''t let the HCA score dissuade you if your lady prefers the 1.19ct. I made a model of the stone in DiamCalc which results you can view with the free Gem Advisor software and the scope images look excellent. Even if it''s not a perfect H&A the optics will still look comparable if its close. The attached model is most likely not exact to the stone but will be darn close becuase the model (as does the HCA) presumes precise optical symmetry. Hope that helps.

 

[Regular Guy]

JG,

I"m sorry...have you or your wife seen the 1.17?

Forgetting the HCA score, with AGS0 trumping it...I''d be sympathetic to the 1.17 still, since you don''t have to hide an inclusion, and the better H&A. These are items of difference.

The depth? You''re doing good science. Looking at the search by cut db, only a surprising number are more shallow than 60.2. But...you''ve run the AGA score...seeing that goes down to 58! I don''t see that as an issue.

I''m sorry your jewler is messing with your mind...having made either a default. Did you tell him to do this, or did he volunteer to do this? This additional factor is unnecessary, and it''s unfortunate to have that play at all in this decision.

If you''re not sensitive to the cost difference, which is notable...all things being equal, I''d probably prefer the 1.17. But....have you pepsi tested them. That would be good... Also....it''s not my money, I''m not an expert, and Jonathan is. So put that in your pipe while you''re at it.

Regards!

 

[johngalt2004]

Thanks RG. Good insight to point out that HCA aside the 1.17 has advantages.

I should clarify the "default" stuff is all my doing. I have blasted this anonymous jeweler here in previous threads but I wish I could take it back. Yes he is trying to make his bucks on the deal (and I have ground him hard and made him earn it you might say). Yes he is not as inexpensive as careful internet shopping would have gotten me. Yes he uses tactics... schmooze, charm, etc he may have written the book

But.... in his defense... I have said "I''ll take it" twice... once to an EGL, and once to the 1.19

The fact that he has put this 1.17 on the table is a big plus for him, not a game I don''t think. He has stepped up and been reasonable in my opinion (as much as i should have expected a "B&M friend of a friend diamond guy" to be) and I wish I could take back some of the paranoid anxiety ridden posts I made the last couple weeks. A flake yes. A tenacious salesman yes. A bad guy no. The way he treated my wife when she stopped in for sizing won me over.

Generally speaking, is a SI1 H&A vs SI2 non-H&A a 12% upgrade? Or a sucker deal? I guess if he says it is structurally sound I will probably prefer the 1.17.

More psychology at this stage than science maybe... I think in the long run I guess I''d rather be wrong buying the better stone than be wrong buying the worse stone.

I have not seen the 1.17 but I am pretty sure I won''t be able to tell the difference. That doesn''t mean a reasonable person with good eyesight wouldn''t though.... I am concerned about making sure her colleagues don''t have anything to dis or smirk about when they see it.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/28/2007 11:12:34 AM
Author: johngalt2004
Thanks RG. Good insight to point out that HCA aside the 1.17 has advantages.

I should clarify the ''default'' stuff is all my doing. I have blasted this anonymous jeweler here in previous threads but I wish I could take it back. Yes he is trying to make his bucks on the deal (and I have ground him hard and made him earn it you might say). Yes he is not as inexpensive as careful internet shopping would have gotten me. Yes he uses tactics... schmooze, charm, etc he may have written the book

But.... in his defense... I have said ''I''ll take it'' twice... once to an EGL, and once to the 1.19

The fact that he has put this 1.17 on the table is a big plus for him, not a game I don''t think. He has stepped up and been reasonable in my opinion (as much as i should have expected a ''B&M friend of a friend diamond guy'' to be) and I wish I could take back some of the paranoid anxiety ridden posts I made the last couple weeks. A flake yes. A tenacious salesman yes. A bad guy no. The way he treated my wife when she stopped in for sizing won me over.

Generally speaking, is a SI1 H&A vs SI2 non-H&A a 12% upgrade? Or a sucker deal? I guess if he says it is structurally sound I will probably prefer the 1.17.

More psychology at this stage than science maybe... I think in the long run I guess I''d rather be wrong buying the better stone than be wrong buying the worse stone.

I have not seen the 1.17 but I am pretty sure I won''t be able to tell the difference. That doesn''t mean a reasonable person with good eyesight wouldn''t though.... I am concerned about making sure her colleagues don''t have anything to dis or smirk about when they see it.

Pepsi test

Three times.

If all things are otherwise equal...see if you get the same results each of the three.

Is that worth your 12%? Your call.

 

[Shay37]

It sounds as if you have not seen the 1.17 yet. I would wait until I had seen it to make a decision. I personally would split the hairs and get the 1.17 because I like the #s better. Rhino has a valid point on similar optics (light return) shallow-deep = bright too. (when I say shallow deep, I do not mean too much of either, so don''t get paranoid about that) I would prefer the stronger pattern, the slightly shallower depth which puts more of the stone face up (negligible dif perhaps more of mind clean for me). The clarity would do it though. It''s totally eyeclean versus eyeclean but not from the side.

That''s my whys and wherefores.

However, the bottom line is do that taste test. You will forever regret not seeing that 1.17 to make your decision. Let the eyes trump the numbers. They really are going to be very very very close.

shay

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The SI1 is definitely worth the small price increase to me. You are leaving off something very important from your specs, though. You don''t have the diameter measurements of either one. The good depth on the first stone might possibly make it face up a little larger. But I''d choose the 1.17 H SI1 regardless from the information we have. I''m not sure why you keep questioning the 60.2 depth...it''s great.

And you are not hogging the board by any means! This is what this board is for!

 

[johngalt2004]

Well the H&A pattern was not hot as advertised but I took the 1.17 anyway and I am really happy with it (the goal after all). The clarity was as advertised, super duper eye clean and could at least partly justify the upcharge. And the spread on the 1.17 was bigger than the 1.19 (6.87 vs 8.84). I also liked fact that AGS, HCA, and AGA all agree on a great score (across the board 1A scores on aga). It is really really nice looking too.

I went into it braced for disapointment on the hearts and did not have a lot mentally staked in that piece of the equation anyway. But mine is an example of what hearts don''t look like lol... they are kind of sorry. But for sure the 1.17 one had better wannabe arrows which I was successful at making out with my bare eyes (although not ACA quality). Well can''t have everything I guess. Next upgrade perhaps a perfect H&A from one of the wonderful PS vendors

The clarity upgrade plus mind-clean closer to Tolk specs made me do it. I won''t blame the HCA entirely, I did not like much the idea of stretching the budget and still being on the outer fringe of the zero cut specs in my mind (whether any validity to it or not doesn''t matter). I figured I will live with that diamond the rest of my life... may as well buy the one I liked better even if it was partly placebo. And I don''t know that it was. They were close and the 1.19 I passed up was surely dazzling. But I feel happy with the SI1 vs SI2 and a tiny bit bigger stone face up. The 1.17 SI1 just feels better... enough better to pony up the extra $700. I think I did the right thing.

I sure do appreciate all the insight, advice and support from everyone at PS including John P from WF, Rhino from GOG, and of course Garry. When the dust settled I have a really killer stone. I get to pick it up tomorrow and my wife will have a nice weekend playing with it! And I got to have an adventure and learn a valuable lesson about where the best diamond deals and advice are (PS). Hopefully I can help somebody along the way with that info.

 

[Regular Guy]

JG,

Congratulations and good work. And..yes...come on back and help others. You know many of the ropes!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/29/2007 2:12:48 AM
Author: johngalt2004
Well the H&A pattern was not hot as advertised but I took the 1.17 anyway and I am really happy with it (the goal after all). The clarity was as advertised, super duper eye clean and could at least partly justify the upcharge. And the spread on the 1.17 was bigger than the 1.19 (6.87 vs 8.84). I also liked fact that AGS, HCA, and AGA all agree on a great score (across the board 1A scores on aga). It is really really nice looking too.

You sure one of those numbers aren''t typo?

Congrats to you Johngalt.

The price difference was primarily in your clarity jump from SI2 to SI1 and is definitely worth it for the peace of mind which it appears you have now.

Now go get engaged!

All the best,

 

[johngalt2004]

lol Rhino. the 1.19 was actually 8.835 but I did't want to look anal carrying the avg to the thousandths

It is for a 10th anniversary. I wouldn't spend this kind of dough if I wasn't SURE about the girl

 

[kev1234]

I think what Rhino was getting at was the 2 mm increase with the .02 carat increase. Quite a difference

 

[johngalt2004]

oops... ok yes... typo. 6.87 vs 6.84.

I''m glad it is Saturday and I don''t have to make decisions that affect other people. I''m tired.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/29/2007 1:09:35 PM
Author: johngalt2004
oops... ok yes... typo. 6.87 vs 6.84.

I''m glad it is Saturday and I don''t have to make decisions that affect other people. I''m tired.

LOL...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Great, John! Get out that digital camera and be sure you take a few pictures for us! I'm sure you wife will be very thrilled with your choice!

 

[kev1234]

Date: 9/29/2007 1:09:35 PM
Author: johngalt2004
oops... ok yes... typo. 6.87 vs 6.84.

I''m glad it is Saturday and I don''t have to make decisions that affect other people. I''m tired.

I second that.

 

[Shay37]

Great news. I can''t wait to see pics.

shay

 

[johngalt2004]

she likes... I was surprised she was a sport about taking pics.

 

[Fly Girl]

Nice solitaire!! Thanks for the pictures!!!

Well Done!!!