Need help selecting H&A 1.29 or larger- pre loved ok too

[Envyme]

Ring size 4 1/2 - 4 3/4

Eta: oh I didn't realize that the JBg wasn't "super ideal" but you're right it probably isn't or it would state that. Would the ASET & pic of the H&A confirm if it's super ideal or not?

Thanks.

 

[pfunk]

pfunk...There was no such thing as AGS ideal cut back when I got engaged in the dark ages, and not a single stone at the jeweler was GIA graded for that matter. It just wasn't as common back then. I have no numbers aside from the weight. I will tell you it is F color and did get a lot of compliments because it was a bright, white stone. Definitely not ideal cut. Regardless, you know very well that I recommend stones besides H&A superideal cuts. I even gave ED multiple chances and recommended their stones, but I eventually decided they were shooting themselves with how they handled customer service, posting here, and website issues. There are plenty of GIA Ex stones that should be avoided and some really great ones. You have to have the info to know which are which!!! The inventor of the HCA will be the FIRST to tell you that it is a screener and not adequate info to make a final selection.

One other thing...there is extra cost and extra benefit to buying stones from a vendor such as the ones who carry the superideals and other ideal cut stones as opposed to one with virtual inventories. The trade-in and buy back policies usually are vastly superior. People do use them. Sadly some engagements fall through or there is a change of mind about one of the specs (wanting higher color or lower color and greater size, better clarity, etc.) and an exchange can easily be made. Some choose to upgrade the diamond due to better financial circumstances than anticipated. This may not matter to some people, but it may matter to others. There are a lot of things to consider besides who sells the cheapest diamonds.

Back to Envyme.....Another option (which I may have mentioned before and am not sure if you have done so) is to tell Victor that you have X dollars to spend on a diamond, want a very well cut (ideal proportions) GIA Ex stone at H-I VS2, and let him source you a stone. If you do, I think he will give you a discount on the setting. I would at least ask him about this. May as well cover all your bases if you haven't done this already.

DS,
I do know very well that you recommend stones that are not superideal, typically to folks on a smaller budget. Usually when someone comes around with a decent size budget we see the "with a budget like that you can definitely get something very nice" line (not necessarily from you) and they are recommended several superideals.

And it's not that I have an issue with that. It's the exaggeration of how beautiful that diamond will look when compared to another well cut stone (or an exaggeration of how "ugly" the other stone could be). It's the insistence to consumers that you are making a mistake and selling yourself short by not getting the best you can. It's things like this: http://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/beware-of-phony-hearts-and.htm Is that really what you'd expect a "regular ideal cut" diamond to look like? No, but it is a perfect example of how customers are constantly warned (i.e. scared) about the "worst case scenario" without being told that it is an exception and not the norm if you stick towards the centers of GIA excellent and/or AGS ideal and an HCA below 2.

You are absolutely right that there is added value aside from the cut of the stone, but since I had started my questioning about the advantages of perfect h&a, it really wasn't meant to be a discussion about what value lies in a superideal besides the cut. If you want to emphasize the black and white perks to consumers I absolutely agree. They should know about these added benefits and value incentives so they can take them into consideration.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ring size 4 1/2 - 4 3/4

Okay, any of these will look nice on her finger. I can't remember if I asked you before, but do you think the largest size is her greatest desire? Or would she like higher quality in a more modest size? Do all her close friends wear large diamonds or smaller than these? I know you don't have to care what other people do, but it isn't great to have the smallest diamond of your close friends or sisters. Nor do I think it is necessary to have one that is far larger...unless size is her greatest desire.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

pfunk, I think we agree on far more than we disagree, as I have said before. My problem is recommending a stone based on numbers alone. As long as there is an idealscope image or an ASET, I have confidence in recommending GIA Ex cut stones. I chose and owned one once upon a time! In fact, I sometimes feel okay with recommending one with very good magnified images of the stone, because sometimes you can see leakage (or none) in certain images. But that is why you don't find me recommending stones from vendors who offer no images. The AGS Ideal cut stone I posted earlier tonight is why I don't recommend buying those blindly, either.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

pfunk...There was no such thing as AGS ideal cut back when I got engaged in the dark ages, and not a single stone at the jeweler was GIA graded for that matter. It just wasn't as common back then. I have no numbers aside from the weight. I will tell you it is F color and did get a lot of compliments because it was a bright, white stone. Definitely not ideal cut. Regardless, you know very well that I recommend stones besides H&A superideal cuts. I even gave ED multiple chances and recommended their stones, but I eventually decided they were shooting themselves with how they handled customer service, posting here, and website issues. There are plenty of GIA Ex stones that should be avoided and some really great ones. You have to have the info to know which are which!!! The inventor of the HCA will be the FIRST to tell you that it is a screener and not adequate info to make a final selection.

One other thing...there is extra cost and extra benefit to buying stones from a vendor such as the ones who carry the superideals and other ideal cut stones as opposed to one with virtual inventories. The trade-in and buy back policies usually are vastly superior. People do use them. Sadly some engagements fall through or there is a change of mind about one of the specs (wanting higher color or lower color and greater size, better clarity, etc.) and an exchange can easily be made. Some choose to upgrade the diamond due to better financial circumstances than anticipated. This may not matter to some people, but it may matter to others. There are a lot of things to consider besides who sells the cheapest diamonds.

Back to Envyme.....Another option (which I may have mentioned before and am not sure if you have done so) is to tell Victor that you have X dollars to spend on a diamond, want a very well cut (ideal proportions) GIA Ex stone at H-I VS2, and let him source you a stone. If you do, I think he will give you a discount on the setting. I would at least ask him about this. May as well cover all your bases if you haven't done this already.

DS,
I do know very well that you recommend stones that are not superideal, typically to folks on a smaller budget. Usually when someone comes around with a decent size budget we see the "with a budget like that you can definitely get something very nice" line (not necessarily from you) and they are recommended several superideals.

And it's not that I have an issue with that. It's the exaggeration of how beautiful that diamond will look when compared to another well cut stone (or an exaggeration of how "ugly" the other stone could be). It's the insistence to consumers that you are making a mistake and selling yourself short by not getting the best you can. It's things like this: http://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/beware-of-phony-hearts-and.htm Is that really what you'd expect a "regular ideal cut" diamond to look like? No, but it is a perfect example of how customers are constantly warned (i.e. scared) about the "worst case scenario" without being told that it is an exception and not the norm if you stick towards the centers of GIA excellent and/or AGS ideal and an HCA below 2.

You are absolutely right that there is added value aside from the cut of the stone, but since I had started my questioning about the advantages of perfect h&a, it really wasn't meant to be a discussion about what value lies in a superideal besides the cut. If you want to emphasize the black and white perks to consumers I absolutely agree. They should know about these added benefits and value incentives so they can take them into consideration.

Pfunk,
Regarding the link you referenced, I completely agree with you about the tone of that page and I have already made edits to it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Our site contains thousands of pages published over a 15+ year period- many were written well before I became part of Whiteflash. Hundreds have been revised and updated or redirected under my watch. If you (or anyone else) ever find content that is outdated, inaccurate or objectionable in any way, please let me know. I will definitely review and make the appropriate changes. We are in the process of re-designing and reorganizing our education department to provide for a better user experience and easier access to the most relevant content.

 

[Envyme]

Here is the report JBG sent me. Thoughts?

 

[Envyme]

Closeup

 

[Envyme]

1 more

 

[Envyme]

Any thoughts now that I posted the certificate?

Thanks again.

 

[teobdl]

Looks great by the numbers. Make sure it's eye clean, which I expect it will be.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, I saw the numbers on the site. I would want an ASET or idealscope image. I prefer images on any diamond. This is not a superideal cut. You need to decide if you want superideal or not. If you don't, then there may be other options. In any event, did they say they'd sell the diamond without the setting?

I asked you a few posts back about her preferences..as in do you think size is the most important spec to her? Do many of her close friends and family have diamonds that are 1.5-2.0 ct+? I am just trying to get a handle on whether the size needs to be as large as possible, or whether a more modest size but higher quality in that halo will please her more.

 

[pfunk]

Yes, I saw the numbers on the site. I would want an ASET or idealscope image. I prefer images on any diamond. This is not a superideal cut. You need to decide if you want superideal or not. If you don't, then there may be other options. In any event, did they say they'd sell the diamond without the setting?

I asked you a few posts back about her preferences..as in do you think size is the most important spec to her? Do many of her close friends and family have diamonds that are 1.5-2.0 ct+? I am just trying to get a handle on whether the size needs to be as large as possible, or whether a more modest size but higher quality in that halo will please her more.

The stone has good numbers and has the highest score possible for performance at the most cut conscious lab in the country. It IS high quality and without a doubt in my mind, a gorgeous stone. You don't need to overthink it too much. If you can get images of it, great. But you should not worry about this diamonds performance in the least and SURELY not cross it off your list solely because you don't have an image of it.

Having said that, the most important consideration in all of this is what will suit her best. Trying to weigh what aspects are most important to her, as DS said, should be the main focus.

 

[Envyme]

I'm so sorry. To clarify the ring is for me but yes most people we know have a 1 ct or smaller- most smaller but both hubby and I like larger stones typically but not at the sacrifice of cut and clarity. My big thing is jewlery. I'm not into clothing, shoes or handbags. So to me I like larger stones. We used to own a 2.83 OEC in P color but the stone was a bit too warm from the side... at the same time it was a beauty because it was an OEC with beautiful facets. I now feel like size is not as crucial as the other "C"'s. I can't have it all so somewhere I have to sacrifice something. Inclusions visible is about the most annoying thing to me personally so I would take a .50 ct stone that's a vs2 over a 1 ct Si1 that's not eye clean any day.

I don't want to look like I have a teensy stone either but I think a 1.3-1.4 isn't super small especially with a halo that's ideal or super ideal.

So would the JBG stone be equivalent to the WF Expert Selection vs GOG being equal to ACA from WF?

Also if I want an ASET JBG said I'd need to pay for it but I don't know what the cost is to do that. Waiting to hear back re that.

 

[teobdl]

It may be "equivalent" to expert selection in terms of optical symmetry, but it does not have the same optical symmetry as a ACA or even some of the superior H&A at GOG. The question is, does it matter? My feeling is no.

Another factor in comparing equivalence is what you get in customer service by purchasing from different vendors. For example, WF and GOG have the 100% trade up policy. I don't know what JBG offers in that department.

If you think you'll keep the diamond forever, go with JBG. If you are more inclined to "trade up" for a bigger diamond later, I'd encourage you to look more into the WF or GOG.

1.7 is a great size, btw, and I would bet that the JBG diamond will be everything you need it to be in terms of cut.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I'm so sorry. To clarify the ring is for me but yes most people we know have a 1 ct or smaller- most smaller but both hubby and I like larger stones typically but not at the sacrifice of cut and clarity. My big thing is jewlery. I'm not into clothing, shoes or handbags. So to me I like larger stones. We used to own a 2.83 OEC in P color but the stone was a bit too warm from the side... at the same time it was a beauty because it was an OEC with beautiful facets. I now feel like size is not as crucial as the other "C"'s. I can't have it all so somewhere I have to sacrifice something. Inclusions visible is about the most annoying thing to me personally so I would take a .50 ct stone that's a vs2 over a 1 ct Si1 that's not eye clean any day.

I don't want to look like I have a teensy stone either but I think a 1.3-1.4 isn't super small especially with a halo that's ideal or super ideal.

So would the JBG stone be equivalent to the WF Expert Selection vs GOG being equal to ACA from WF?

Also if I want an ASET JBG said I'd need to pay for it but I don't know what the cost is to do that. Waiting to hear back re that.

Oh awesome! It is SO much easier advising you knowing the ring is for you! I feel exactly the same way! Jewelry is my big thing and I am also not into clothing and handbags! I am also with you on clarity. My e-ring stone is VS1 and I like having a clean stone! You are right that you have to be selective with VS2.

Before we discuss the diamond at JBG any further, did she say the diamond can be sold alone or not?

I will say that it appears to have very skinny arrows so probably a high lower girdle facet % like 80ish. The ASET would have helped me see that better since it is not listed on the AGS report as they usually are. But you don't have to have an ASET.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I am going to show you two WF ES stones to show you why an ASET is helpful. Both stones are beautiful, I am sure, but I would choose one of them over the other because of better light performance. Others here obviously do not care about getting the better stones within the ideal cut range, and that is fine for them. But for me, I want a stone that is one of the best, even if NOT superideal, when I am spending $10-20-30k!

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3377988.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3048657.htm

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Too late to edit my last post, but I will say that one has leakage and the other does not. I obviously cannot judge light performance from a picture. This just illustrates that within AGS Ideal, you can have superideals with perfect images down to stones with visible leakage in the images.

 

[Envyme]

Is the second WF the stone with leakage?

 

[emmebee]

That's right, the second one has the leakage. You can see the ring under the table of the white-ish color, which represents leakage.

 

[Envyme]

She also hasn't been back to me yet on if it can be sold without the setting

 

[diamondseeker2006]

That's right, the second one has the leakage. You can see the ring under the table of the white-ish color, which represents leakage.

+1 The idealscope images shows it best. You can contrast it to the first stone that has a nice red all over. It is still a nice stone, but I would buy the other one between those two. Just shows you why images are helpful.

 

[Envyme]

Yes she said the cost includ shipping would be $160 for the ASET.

Should I do it in your opinion?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

So she verified they would sell the stone without the setting? If so, I would then decide on a price to offer on the diamond alone before I spent the money on the ASET. If they reject the price subject to seeing the ASET, then you have saved $160. But I'd have to do a little price research before giving an opinion on a price to offer for a second hand stone. Do you know the date of the AGS report? If it is not a relatively new one, I'd also want verification that the stone is still in the same condition as originally graded.

 

[Envyme]

She is waiting on a reply from the seller to see if she's willing to sell loose...don't know the answer yet.

Report was from 2006. So that's a great point! I need to make sure the stone is in the same condition

How or what's the best method to come up with a reasonable offer for a second hand stone? Do I compare it to current stone on say WF with close to the same carat weight, color , and such?

Basically don't know what a fair offer is and a means to calculate it.

Thank you so much for your help and all the time you have given btw Diamondseeker!

Xoox

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You are so welcome! I came here just like you once upon a time and am ever so thankful for the help I received which has resulted in my having much better quality jewelry than I EVER would have had otherwise! So I hung around PS and it is a hobby now!

I was going to find similar stones that are ideal cut and not superideal. Then offer 25% off the average of those, probably. If the stone was newer, I might offer more. But the stone was bought back when prices were much lower, and the stone presumably has been worn a long time, too. It is so weird discussing price right here where the seller (who is unknown to me) can read everything we are saying. Getting 75% of current pricing is pretty good, I think, because they likely will get back what they originally paid at least.

 

[pfunk]

I am going to show you two WF ES stones to show you why an ASET is helpful. Both stones are beautiful, I am sure, but I would choose one of them over the other because of better light performance. Others here obviously do not care about getting the better stones within the ideal cut range, and that is fine for them. But for me, I want a stone that is one of the best, even if NOT superideal, when I am spending $10-20-30k!

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3377988.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3048657.htm

By better stones do you mean stones with less leakage? And how did you determine one had "better" light performance?

 

[teobdl]

I'd be very curious to know what criteria allowed the diamond with the poor IS to be an Expert Select. The crown/pav combo puts it on the edge of AGS 0, and that combo often has some leakage under the table. I think I remember that for diamonds with tables and lgf's in that range, a 40.8 pav with greater than 35.5+ gets dicey. The HCA says it's a 3.4, btw.

It's been mentioned before that people with two eyes wouldn't notice that kind of leakage.

Nonetheless, without more definitive info about how nice that specific ES diamond is, I personally would not buy it.

One thing is for sure: if you're buying any diamond, stick with the typical PS proportion parameters + GIA ideal/AGS 0 or 1, and your likelihood of getting leakage is reduced to near 0.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I am going to show you two WF ES stones to show you why an ASET is helpful. Both stones are beautiful, I am sure, but I would choose one of them over the other because of better light performance. Others here obviously do not care about getting the better stones within the ideal cut range, and that is fine for them. But for me, I want a stone that is one of the best, even if NOT superideal, when I am spending $10-20-30k!

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3377988.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3048657.htm

By better stones do you mean stones with less leakage? And how did you determine one had "better" light performance?

Excuse me, I should have said better light return.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I'd be very curious to know what criteria allowed the diamond with the poor IS to be an Expert Select. The crown/pav combo puts it on the edge of AGS 0, and that combo often has some leakage under the table. I think I remember that for diamonds with tables and lgf's in that range, a 40.8 pav with greater than 35.5+ gets dicey. The HCA says it's a 3.4, btw.

It's been mentioned before that people with two eyes wouldn't notice that kind of leakage.

Nonetheless, without more definitive info about how nice that specific ES diamond is, I personally would not buy it.

One thing is for sure: if you're buying any diamond, stick with the typical PS proportion parameters + GIA ideal/AGS 0 or 1, and your likelihood of getting leakage is reduced to near 0.

Teobdl,
Yes that one is an outlier on the AGS0 grade. The easiest way to answer your question is to point you to the information on our site:
The requirements for our ES grade are here:
http://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/what-are-expert-selection-diamonds.htm
As compared to those of our ACA grade here:
http://www.whiteflash.com/a-cut-above-diamonds-specifications-and-qualifications/

 

[pfunk]

pfunk--your tenacity for pursuing these questions is appreciated by all, even if it may be a thorn to some at times. Whether some are holding fast to ideas due to obvious vested interests, or whether they truly do believe certain ideas to be the case, is probably impossible to sort out on an online message board.

Earlier you had asked about research that quantifies the differences btw super-ideal vs ideal. It's an interesting question that has yet to be satisfactorily answered, probably because no one actually knows.

Some things to keep you learning if you want:
I don't have time to wade through everything right now, but Peter Yantzer, the executive director of AGS, has a few slides about increasing # of perceptible virtual facets by increasing correct cut precision and by increasing diamond size/weight for a tolk MRB. These slides can be found somewhere in Wink's library of videos, but I can't remember which one (maybe the one on scintillation?):

http://www.screencast.com/users/WinkJones/folders/Educational%20videos/media/d1898713-1545-40c7-a7b7-cc9af775c47f

Paul makes an appearance, and John Pollard might have been there too.

Keep in mind that quantifying the differences in virtual facets is one thing--understanding how these VF's make differences in perceived beauty is quite another, especially when one takes into account distance, lighting, vision acuity, and personal taste.

Finally, Sergey (Serg), Garry Halloway, and others have been collaborating on research for a number of years to 1) understand differences in cut, particularly how the brain interprets these differences and 2) to quantify these differences in a way that correlates to human understanding of diamond beauty wrt contrast, scintillation, and brightness. As you can imagine, these are not easy questions to answer, and the research is ongoing. I think some of that preliminary work can be found here http://www.gemology.ru/cut/english/document4.htm . A primary focus of their present work is one-eye vs two-eye perception.

My current personal opinion on the topic discussed is that the pinnacle of cut precision is generally not worth the extra money unless the buyer understands that it is mostly a "mind clean" purchase in the same way that one might purchase an D-E vs a G color.

Teobdl, as I said before thanks so much for posting the links. I have checked out the info on Wink's site and watched the video regarding scintillation. While the slides you referred to were not all shown in that video, I believe I saw them posted by MelisendeDiamonds in one of my earlier threads.

The statement on the slides was that optical symmetry keeps average virtual facet size up. That is great information to know, but you need to know what they mean by "optical symmetry". Does it mean perfect h&a? Diamonds can be cut with good optical symmetry but they may not have perfect hearts and arrows unless cut to specific proportions.

I would ask other questions as well. Such as, which factors have the greatest effect on the virtual facets and scintillation? Certain facet proportions such as the LGFs? Diameter of the stone? Any host of factors may contribute, and until we know which ones are driving the changes, why do we place such a LARGE emphasis on the hearts and arrows indicative of great optical symmetry? Does increasing the stones diameter increase the average virtual facet size more than h&a symmetry does? If so (and as an example of a single variable), consumers may be better served by purchasing a larger stone with their money as opposed to purchasing one with perfect h&a.

Your last point is key, as the allure of a super ideal is definitely NOT regularly explained to consumers as a "mind clean" difference on this forum or within this thread. You always see the Maserati vs. Honda analogies flying around here, which implies GREAT differences in performance.

Paul, if you are still checking in I would love for you to address the post that I made that quoted several statements from the CBI website regarding the information that is being shared in markets other than the US. If there is more research or information available, as the website seems to suggest, I and others would be interested in it if it is accessible.