My new friends - please help me decide between these two stones!

[Lynn B]

Hello! As some of you may know, I am in the process of getting an anniversary ring. (We were married VERY young, and I never got an e-ring, so this is my first diamond. I am soooo excited!) I have chosen a gorgeous 18K white gold semi-mount with 2.5 TCW in princess and baguettes. All those stones are G color, VS clarity. All that is holding me up now is the center stone.

I have been working with my wonderful local jeweler, and he got these two beautiful stones. I looked at them both today. I can't decide! I need your help, please. Which one should I choose, and why?

DIAMOND #1
AGS-0002959708; lab report dated 2/14/02
Round Brilliant (H & A) 1.516 cts.
Measurements: 7.34 - 7.38 x 4.55 mm
CUT GRADE: AGS Ideal 0
Polish/Symmetry/Proportions: All Ideal
COLOR GRADE: G
CLARITY GRADE: VS-1
Flourescence: "Inert"
TABLE: 57%
DEPTH: 61.8%
CROWN HEIGHT: 14.8%
CROWN ANGLE: 34.6
PAVILION DEPTH: 43.3%
PAVILION ANGLE: 40.9
GIRDLE: Faceted, 1.2% - 1.9%
CULET: Pointed
HCA Score: 1.7 (EX/EX/VG/VG)
ISEE2 Score: 8.8
Gemappraisers.com score: 1-A
Cost: $12,617

DIAMOND #2:
AGS-0004964603; lab report dated 3/29/04
Round Brilliant, (H & A) 1.705 cts.
Measurements: 7.54 - 7.63 x 4.79 mm
CUT GRADE: AGS Ideal 0
Polish/Symmetry/Proportions: All Ideal
COLOR GRADE: G
CLARITY GRADE: VS-2
Flourescence: Negligible
TABLE: 54%
DEPTH: 63.1%
CROWN HEIGHT: 16.3%
CROWN ANGLE: 35.6
PAVILION DEPTH: 43.0%
PAVILION ANGLE: 40.8
GIRDLE: Faceted, 1.4% - 2.9%
CULET: Pointed
HCA Score: 2.9 (VG/VG/VG/G)
ISEE2 Score: 9.2
Gemappraisers.com score: 2-A
Cost: $13,675

I am so torn! I looked at both of them under a loupe and a microscope, and in all lighting conditions except sunlight (it is an overcast day in PA today!). They are both very beautiful, and they both "speak to me"!

I am perplexed because #1 was the higher scorer on the HCA, but the lower scorer on the Isee2. #2 scored lower on the HCA, but scored really high on the Isee2.

I do not have (and cannot get!) an Idealscope or a Brilliance-scope reading.

So, what do you think? What would YOU do?!

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH!
Lynn

 

[oldminer]

I 'd take # 1. Plenty big and a better depth percentage. Besides, if you spend $1000 less for the stone, you could take a nice little trip or spend a luxurious and romantic weekend somewhere... It could be a good trade-off.

 

[Lynn B]

David,

THANK YOU so much for the response. I appreciate it very much!

You're totally right about the $1,000... and believe me, I'd love to save it, too!

But the bottom line is, this is probably a once-in-a-lifetime purchase for us, so that $1,000 difference is not really a major deciding factor.

What do you think about the lower ISEE2 score? And the older date on the lab report?

I'm so hoping that an excellent, educated decision can be made without an Ideal-scope or Brillance-Scope reading -- do you think that it can be?

Thanks again,
Lynn

 

[10X]

Lynn,

I am glad to see that your jeweler was able to show you some diamonds that you really like.

There is minimal difference in the ISee2 scores that would most likely not be noticeable to your eye.

I too like #1.

Please continue to keep us informed on the progress and completion of your ring. The picture you sent was stunning and I would love to see the finished product as well. What an anniversary gift! Best wishes.

 

[10X]

I WANT THEM BOTH!!!


LOL

....I bet you do want them both, but as a traveler I like David's idea. Save a few bucks, get a gorgeous stone and take a weekend vacation to show it off.

I am sure they are both beautiful. Have fun building your dream ring and please be sure to post pics.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 5/20/2004 4:36:57 PM 10X wrote:

I WANT THEM BOTH!!!


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

Then keep them BOTH!

I'm with the group. Unless #2 speaks to you much louder, I like #1 better from the numbers. The parameters are tighter, it's cheaper & seems to have a nice balance. Though G/VS1 wouldn't be my choice (because I'm cheap!), it's a very fine stone w/o overkill.

I don't like the girdle swing in #2 & the mm aren't as close. And, with the fatter girdle & deeper depth, the stone will not seem a full 1/4 carat larger.

Good luck! And, Congrats on your pending anniversary!

 

[Lynn B]

----------------
On 5/20/2004 4:50:40 PM fire&ice wrote:

----------------
On 5/20/2004 4:36:57 PM 10X wrote:

I WANT THEM BOTH!!!


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

Though G/VS1 wouldn't be my choice (because I'm cheap!), it's a very fine stone w/o overkill.

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

Thanks for your input! I truly appreciate it!
I chose "G" because the stones in the semi-mount are "G" and I was surprised at how much that mattered. I looked at other colors (both up and down the color range) for the center stone, and "G" was perfect. It was the only thing I wouldn't compromise on. I didn't have to have VS-1, I would have been happy with any clarity that was eye-clean and not included so much as to impede light return. It just so happens that this stone is VS-1 -- so that's just a very fun "bonus"!

Would you be concerned about the 2+ year old lab grading report? According to Fred, that is a BIG NO NO BAD DOG!!!!

Lynn

 

[hoorray]

Yep -- I agree. I missed those swings in the girdle and diameter on number 2. Good eye F&I. #1 just sounds like the better cut stone -- the tightness and the crown/pavilion combo. G/VS1 is a nice combo. You can go lower, but sometimes it is nice to have that extra quality -- even if you can't really see it, you'll know it. Unless you really want the larger spread, I'd pick number 1.

 

[Lynn B]

lop,

Thank you, too, for your reply. I truly appreciate all of your input!

What do you and Fire&Ice mean by the "swings of the girdle and diameter" (of #2)?

Thanks again,
Lynn

 

[fire&ice]

Um, I'd like to see the cert fresher; but, whose to say that #2 was certed in 2001 & resubmitted to AGS in 2004.

From the numbers, I just don't see any red flags; so, maybe this was just in someones vault forgotten until rediscovered. You've seen it. It speaks to you. Maybe it was just waiting for it's righful home to come along.

And, the price seems in-line.

I don't buy into anything ol' Mr Warped has to say.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 5/20/2004 5:15:14 PM Lynn B wrote:

lop,

What do you and Fire&Ice mean by the 'swings of the girdle and diameter' (of #2)?

Thanks again,
Lynn ----------------

While I doubt your eye could see much difference, the girdle swing & tightness in round (mm) goes to issue of a stone that much attention was paid to.

Stone # 1 mm 7.34-7.38 - variation in round of .04
Girdle 1.2%- 1.9% - variation .7

Stone #2 mm 7.54 - 7.63 - variation in round of .09
Girdle 1.4 - 2.9% variation of 1.5%

Again, it could be the person measuring. You may not see the diff w/ your eye - but just goes to issue of why *on paper* number 2 wouldn't be my choice.

And, you really are paying for carat weight unseen with the 63.1 depth.

 

[verticalhorizon]

Lynn

First, congrats! Diamonds are some shark infested waters. Good thing you swam to safety at PS! (I think we're gonna need a bigger boat.)

I would have to agree... #1 does seem like the winner. Here's why...

1. HCA Score under 2
2. Crown angle at 34.6 is near ideal over that of #2 (35.6) That one degree can make the difference since both pavillion angles are the same, and near ideal at 40.8 and 40.9, it makes the crown angle that much more important.
3. I wouldn't worry about the minimal ISee2 score, you won't notice the difference.

The Cons:
1. Table is a little large, but it may be b/c of the lower crown height. Someone will have to confirm. No biggie.
2. Diameter is a little smaller than a perfect 1.5ct, but with potential price increases going the way they are, if it shines

, then don't let it pass you by. (But also note, the 1.7ct is also smaller than what would be perfect for that weight too!) Again, no biggie.

With a clarity of VS1, you'll be hard pressed to find the inclusion in rock #1. The fact that the certification uses the word "inert" makes sense since the report is from 2002. They stopped using inert and started using negligible, so you won't have to worry about that. Plus, a little flourecense never hurt anybody!

If you're worried about the size difference, don't. The difference is 0.189ct and an increase in diameter of... 0.2mm. With the likely improved performance of #1, you'll never know the difference.

I know most people post these kind of threads to make themselves feel better about their choices. Everyone does it and it's important when talking about this much money. But think about your priorities and you'll never have buyers remorse.

Here's my diamond priorities, everyone's differs. I call them my 5-C's.

1. CASH - know your budget above all
2. CUT - this is not just the shape, but the QUALITY of cutting
3. CARAT - so close to cut, it's almost a tie! Everyone wants bigger, but at some point you realize fractions of millimeters is trivial. A better cut will appear larger
4. CLARITY - my thoughts are, if you can't find it at a reasonable distance, then it ain't there. Make certain from an independent appraiser that any inclusions don't pose a durability issue, but go as low as you feel comfortable and pocket the cash
5. COLOR - in well Cut RB's, you can sometimes go down as low as J and get a diamond that faces up white. Fancy shapes aren't as forgiving and will may take a priority over Clarity, dependinding on preference.

Good luck!

 

[hoorray]

VH gives a good summary, but I would disagree with his comment that the table of #1 may be a little big. I think most people consdier 57% to be well in the ideal range, so it is a matter of personal preference whether you prefer larger or smaller tables. Personally, I think you have to work with a lot of diamonds before you develop a preference for one or the other within the ideal range.

I think the net net is that everyone agrees that #1 is the better cut stone and should have the better performance between the two. You like them both, so I don't think you are at risk of making a mistake, even tho you don't have an ideal-scope or brilliance scope report. At the end of the day, it's all about how it looks to you!

 

[verticalhorizon]

Agreed LOP, I almost deleted that part. The one thing that stood out was that both stones were MARGINALLY deep for their weight. #2 moreso than #1. But #1's complimentary angles were great!

I have to add that if #1 looks like a winner then it most likely is. See if they'll let you see it in different types of lighting and make the sale contingent on an appraisal confirmation. (yadda, yadda... etc, etc.) The appraiser will be able to answer any questions you have.

 

[verticalhorizon]

The price for #1 is about on par. Here's a similar 1.66ct from Whiteflash.

 

[Lynn B]

THANK YOU all so very much for the valuable input and advice. What a privilege to be able to tap such an awesome resource here at PS.

Well, Pretty Little Rock #1 is definitely in the "lead" here.

Another important question: After I call my jeweler to tell him which stone I want, what should I do next? Can I just have him set the stone in the ring and call it a day?! (That's what I'd LIKE to do! I am so eager to wear this baby!) But I do want to do the right thing; but as I mentioned, these are new waters to me; I've never bought a diamond before.

I did check my local phone book - no "diamond appraisers" in my area (small town, rural area). So what do you recommend? Find one out of town? Do I send them the loose stone, not yet set in the ring? Should I ask to have a serin report run to be sure I got the stone the (2 year old) cert says I did? I want to do the smart thing - I'm just not sure exactly WHAT that is!

Again, thank you all so much.

Lynn

 

[verticalhorizon]

Well, the good news is that you've seen the stones already. I would recommend Richard Sherwood as your appraiser, he's here on PS. He's as thorough as I've seen anywhere. Also, David Atlas' office gets nothing but raves!

For insurance purposes, I would have the loose diamond appraised first. It's easiler for them to analyze. Plus, you can double check to make sure the cert is correct prior to setting.

I would also recommend that the jeweler ship the stones and not you. Once you take possession of them, their your resposibility. Most homeowners insurance won't cover a loose diamond of that amount. You can insure it for the full amount using USPostal, but most likely not with FedEx or UPS. Vendors have special relationships with their insurance that covers them.

When the appraiser is done, they can ship it striaght back to the jeweler to be set.

Now... settings? That's a whole other thread!

 

[hoorray]

I would ask the jeweler to make the sale contingent on your acceptance after getting an appraisel. That way, if there is anying amiss, you don't have to fight about it. I would have him ship the loose stone to either David Atlas or Rich Sherwood. David is in Philly, I think, Rich is in Fl. They will ship the stone back to be set, and can most likely just update the appraisal for the ring info so that you can use it for insurance.

This may take a little longer, but it is a good, safe way to approach the whole thing. Contact Dave or RIch to find out their availability so that it doesn't end up sitting for a while before they can get to it.

 

[fire&ice]

If I recall correctly, you are in PA. To ease your mind w/ such an expensive purchase, you could have it brought or sent to D. Atlas (Oldminer). Most people know him in the area. Shouldn't be a problem.

But, only you can decide.

 

[WinkHPD]

Lynn,

I just got your PM asking me to give an opinion on this stone, so I will. Without taking the time to analyze all of the nubers, both stones should look great, the depth is a little high on the one stone at 63. % but the table at 54 should look to have a little more dispersion (flashes of colored light) than the 57 table. I LOVE dispersion so that might swing me in favor of the second stone, depending on just how much dispersion and how little loss of brilliance there was do to the VERY slightly deepness of the second stone. I would say that in the end it comes down to how it looks to you.

I certainly do not see any problem with either stone, and I am certain you will be a PROUD owner regardless of which one you take.

I must go now to pick up Paul Slegers in a little while so will not have time to play anymore this evening, but i wanted to give you my opinion before I left. I thank you for the priveledge of your request, and hope you will through my opinion into the hat with all of the others, mix them all up and then make your final decision based on what YOUR eye likes best.

Wink

P.S. I propose high fives and celebrations for either stone, I do not think you have the ability to make a bad choice between these two stones. Have your jeweler place both stones on a black pad, do not tell you which is which, step back a few paces and walk back in forth in front of them and choose the one that makes your eyes the happiest.

 

[niceice]

By the numbers, we'd go with the first diamond which is cut to balanced proportions... The total depth of the second stone is too deep in our opinion... The reason it is scoring well on the Isee2 is probably because of the 40.8 degree pavilion angle - as it is the primary reflective surface for the diamond. How about posting the plotting diagram off of the lab report for the first stone?

 

[Lynn B]

----------------
How about posting the plotting diagram off of the lab report for the first stone?----------------

Thank you for your response!

But, oh my word, I'm embarrassed to say I don't know what you mean by the plotting diagram?! I only have a one-sided photocopy of the AGS report, and there is only the grading scale, the "Important Notice", the drawing of the diamond w/ proportions, and the drawing of the top and bottom for inclusions.

 

[Magnum]

Hi Lynn, sorry I didn't respond to your pm sooner. It's been a busy day. I pretty much agree with most of what was said above. Stone #1 is definitely the safe choice and should be a remarkable diamond. All the numbers look really good, and it gets an excellent score on the ISEE2. If I had to pick one or the other based JUST on the numbers you provided, I would pick diamond #1. BUT, you don't have to make that choice, you actually get to look at them...

As far as comparing the two, I wouldn't worry too much about the difference in the HCA score or the AGA cut grade. Neither one is a direct measurement of the diamond's beauty, and is not a fool-proof tool to pick one diamond over another. There's a lot they do not take into account that can greatly affect the light performance of the diamond. i would put more weight in the ISEE2 score, since it actually takes a direct measurement from the diamond. Here's what Rhino has to say about noticing the difference between scores from a different thread: "On the scale from 0.0 - 9.8 it is almost impossible to distinguish the differences in diamonds over 9 and even the high 8's. When a stone dips into the 8's however I can generally always point out the reason why through our LightScope analysis." So, according to Rhino, they are both extremely well cut stones, with a slight edge to #2, but probably not a noticeable difference. And for what it's worth, Rhino, who pretty much uses every technology out there, says that if he could only use one to evaluate a diamond, he would pick the ISEE2. So, they both appear to be extremely well cut. I would put the most weight in how the diamonds look in your eyes, since you're the one that gets to enjoy the one you pick for a long time. I know you said they both look good to your eyes, but maybe the test that Wink suggested might help you decide and figure out which one calls to you the most. If they both sparkle just as good, then maybe the size difference might catch your eye and make the extra cost worth it. I don't think you could go wrong either way, even with the minor flaws pointed out in the second diamond.

Now, to throw a little spice in the mix, I'm actually pretty intrigued
by the numbers of the second stone. yes it has a a little large total depth, but in my opinion, in this case, it's actually for a few not so bad reasons: table %, crown angle, and girdle thickness. First, the girdle thickness, and the least justifiable, . Yes there is a little extra weight in the girdle, but the percentages you listed are basically medium to slightly thick, and I don't think there are that many people that would have a problem with slightly thick. It's still in the ideal range. Second, the crown angle. 35.6 is pretty steep, and that's why you get the 2A score from the AGA, and the 2.9 score from the HCA. But a steeper crown angle can mean extra fire (dispersion), and if you didn't notice any significant darkness when you looked into the stone, coupled with the great 9.2 ISEE2 score (which also measures brilliance), I don't see a problem with the 35.6 crown angle. It might actually enhance the fire of the diamond. Third the table. I actually really like the look of a smaller table, and a smaller table also has the potential to increase fire. I don't see anything wrong with a 54% table. My diamond actually has one.

These three reasons combined are why the diamond has a 63% depth, but to me, it's not as a big a problem as it first appears.

So, in my opinion, I actually prefer a small table and a little steeper crown angle, as long as it doesn't adversely affect the brilliance. If it does adversely affect the brilliance, that's something your eyes and the ISEE2 should be able to pick out. If it doesn't adversely affect it, then the possibility of increased fire(dispersion) sounds tempting to me. If I could actually compare the two in person, there's a really good chance that I'd actually pick #2. Along with the possibility of greater fire, if the extra money isn't a factor, I'd bet that there is a noticeable difference in size, especially side by side. One final thing to consider is something cut nut talked about a while ago, but hasn't mentioned in a while, or incorporated into his HCA, and that's what he calls "vertical spread". My diamond's in a full bezel setting, and I wanted to make sure a lot of the top of the diamond was visible and stuck out above the bezel. So, even though it has a 62.1 depth, it has a thn-med girdle, but a 34.9 crown and 54% table, which accounts for a lot of the extra depth, but in my opinion contributes to the diamond's "vertical spread" and is something I can notice, especially when viewing the ring from the side. Anyway, those are all just some of my opinions. Feel free to disregard as necessary.

Hope I could help though.

I'm sure you'll be happy whichever way you decide to go, and I'm really happy that your local jeweler seems to have come through with a couple of really nice choices. I know you were worried there for a while.

best of luck with your decision.

 

[Lynn B]

Magnum,

Thanks for the informative post! Yes, you really did throw some "spice" into the mix, alright!

Actually, Diamond #2 did NOT really look noticably "bigger" at all. I was surprised at that. Each of the diamonds seemed beautiful and sparkly... they were MINUTELY "different" from each other... we are talking an EXTREMELY SMALL "difference"... almost imperceptible. But I can't really describe it, and I can't really say that one or the other looked more beautiful to me... just a teeny tiny bit of "difference".

Since they were both gorgeous to me, I guess I just want to choose the "best" diamond. Does that make sense? Knowing that something like 90% (or more?!) of the diamonds out there are NOT well cut, or cut to anywhere near their prospective potential, makes me very nervous. I'm normally quite a confident girl

but this purchase has me feeling VERY insecure. I wonder, "Did I really, really find an awesome stone?!!"

Oh... >> I am just not having FUN anymore!!!

Lynn

 

[Magnum]

"Did I really, really find an awesome stone?!!"
Yes, I personally think you've found two.

"Oh... >> I am just not having FUN anymore!!!"
You should be having lots of fun.

You get to choose between two apparently beautiful diamonds. If you don't see any difference in size or sparkle, than I say go with the safer and less expensive choice, diamond #1. And at least maybe give Wink's suggestion a try.

 

[Lynn B]

Magnum,
Thanks for the sweet post. I appreciate your reassurance! It means a lot to me.

BTW, yes, Wink's suggestion is a great one. The only problem is that the "local" jeweler I've been talking about is still an hour's drive away. (Still "local" by Smalltown, USA standards

!) I've been back and forth quite a few times already in The Quest, and now w/ gas prices well over $2/gallon... yikes! I think realistically that I have looked at those diamonds enough to know that they were both beautiful. I wish I would've known to do what Wink suggested while I was still there yesterday, but I did just about everything BUT that!

My jeweler actually asked, "Do you want to take them home?" I was so flattered, but mostly I was like:

I would have been a nervous wreck responsible for both of those stones!!! Plus it would mean another long drive to get them back to him. Life would be SO much easier and simpler if he were closer!

Thanks again all,
Lynn

 

[Giangi]

I, too, would go with #1. It has a very fine crown/pavilion combo, close diameters and an even girdle, with an excellent HCA and ISee2 score. That's a big plus to me. Additionally, I feel that #2 is a bit deep. Don't get me wrong, you have selected two very, very nice stones and you won't do anything wrong no matter which one you choose. But if you feel that the size difference is not noticeable, why spend $1K more on #2, especially knowing it hides some weight?

 

[valeria101]

Well... I'd take them home!

By numbers alone, the first stone could be a little more brilliant, and the second would have a little better symmetry. By saying it this way, I just want to point out that both advantages could be just subtle enough to be all but invisible even upon serious scrutiny. While there might be some visible difference betweene the two (say... of brilliance in indirect light, the look of those arrows and the table), both should be very close to what "best" there is conceivable (meaning, theoretical model) for this type of cut.

Choosing from such a line up, I see no reason to go by any other criteria than your taste and intuition: somethins best at work with the stones lined up and available for you to play with

 

[Lynn B]

If anyone reading this thread could kindly hop over to...

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/last-request-i-promise-a-new-stone-to-consider.15776/

The plot thickens... and I REALLY NEED YOUR ADVICE NOW!

Thank you so much!

Lynn

 

[Brian Knox]

Hi Lynn,

Forget the numbers and the scores on these two diamonds.

You have the ability to compare these two diamonds with your own two eyes.

Trust yourself to tell yourself what is the better diamond for you, as only you can factor in your personal preferences.

You are the one that will be looking at this diamond hundreds of times per day for the rest of your life.

Buy the one that talks to you.