Need help with this Diamond, Round H vs2

[hedarud]

So I have been reading a lot and have become accostomed to using the HCA. I found this stone and want some input before i pull the trigger.

It is a GIA stone, 1.71ct VS2 H color
VG cut

Polish / symm excellent, no flor

The GIA cert i was emailed is horrible in quality so I will type it out

7.78 7.82 4.59

table 60.0 %
depth 58.8 %
crown angle 35.0
pav angle 40.3
star length 50%
lowe rend 80%

thin to med faceted
culet - none

it is commented as hearts and arrows although the cert makes no mention of this, cost is about 7400 per carat....

please let me know if you think the table is too wide compared to depth, overall value, any input is appreciated please , Thanks

 

[Skippy123]

looks like it could be a winner but I need more info. Give us the cost and maybe we can compare to see if you are getting a good deal or not.

Factor Grade
Light Return Very Good
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Excellent
Spread
or diameter for weight Excellent
Total Visual Performance 1.1 - Excellent
within TIC range

tool used. https://www.pricescope.com/cutadviser.asp

what kind of cert? Did the Cert say Very good cut???

 

[hedarud]

it is gia, and 7400 / ct, around 12700

 

[Skippy123]

do you have the gia certificate number?

If the cut is GIA very good then it isn''t excellent.

Here is this one.
http://search.virtcert.com/cgi/u/1012/v.cgi?stock=6891471&_s=1012&_p=sdf348gd743&_c=&_fs=1&prestock=&_ln=ps

and this one
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2372/

 

[hedarud]

I beleive the gia cert # is GIA 16198409. My interest in this stone is as follows....
polish sym BOTH EXCELLENT
cut rated as very good
wider table - so diamond looks bigger

HCA score still very good based on #s. I was explained that the table is wider than preferred, hence cut was not rated higher

Again my question is.....is it bad to have table to depth proportions this diamond possesses. Why is it bad to have such proportions. Is it not true it is wider than a typical 1.70 ct stone and that is a good thing right or does that usually mess up internal angles such that it does not shine well (or HCA does not necessary correlate well with actual stone properties).

Anyone else can chime in too please, Thanks so far for your input

 

[Regular Guy]

Hedarud,

I think what you're doing makes a lot of sense, and this one is promising. You're using HCA to do a back end around systems that aren't' as broad thinking, and I think this would probably represent a good value.

In the best of cases, however, you'd compare this one to another one with more traditional looks, and judge for yourself whether the premium is worth it for that. For example...for about a $3K premium, the search by cut shows you this option, and gets you AGS0 for light performance. It's not by any means a dunk shot about which one you'd even prefer...let alone deciding that the more expensive one is worth $3k more...but it would be nice to have the choice.

(eta...) I'm not sure what I knew, and when I knew it when I bought my wife's replacement diamond. Since then, the confidence in AGS's systems has grown to be pretty impressive on this board...earlier...a diamond could have earned AGS0, and it was not a lock it was "ideal" looking, but that's really not so much longer the case...so investing in one with one of these certs becomes more reasonable. Usually, criticism if any is from aficionados, who would like a subset of AGS0 performance...and usually not from someone who is shopping outside of AGS0 parameters.

But...I invested in a diamond that was outside 0 parameters, and did it with eyes open, largely depending a lot on the HCA. Maybe too much so. But...I compared this option against a couple of others...a pepsi test...and found ours to be a favorite over the couple of others in consideration. This did help to bolster the decision. Later, comparing it to others at places like Tiffanys...this help to add confidence, as well.

 

[JulieN]

Pavilion is too shallow for my tastes.

 

[hedarud]

Thank you for your input Regularguy.. I was hoping you'd chime in.

JUlieN. I have no idea what that means, i guess you hate the stone

 

[Harleigh]

hedarud...

I have a 2.11c stone that I love because the table is bigger and it makes my stone look larger. It is definitely a personal taste issue, and I wanted good quality and a stone that looks larger than it weighs, so somebody like me is able to appreciate a stone like the one you mentioned. Just my 2 cents...hope it helps!

You can see my ring here.

(Hope I did that link right!)

 

[hedarud]

Harleigh, i appreciate your input, I am going to purchase this stone probably Thanks

 

[Regular Guy]

Hedarud,

I'd like to understand better, too...the differences between stated ideas about pavilion angle variances...and how these statements are true & not true..

Julie says:

Date: 7/16/2007 11:23:45 PM
Author: JulieN
Pavilion is too shallow for my tastes.

In the My diamond, an FIC, on the other hand, is at 40.1 (with 35.8 crown).

I do think there are probably negative consequences to going outside the range between 40.5 - 41...but my suspicion is that, in the bigger picture, having a countervailing crown angle takes care of most of it.

 

[JulieN]

i notice the expected darkness in pictures with low pav angles.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 7/17/2007 12:38:06 AM
Author: JulieN
i notice the expected darkness in pictures with low pav angles.

Yes, and I guess this is consistent with the text that goes along with the HCA tutorial that says:

"Shallow stones (lower left on the chart) look darker if you have excellent close up vision because your head obstructs more light sources which makes a shallow diamond appear darker."

So, this is the effect of the camera looming down on the diamond, right. We guess?

Pointing to the same tutorial text, and just above it, we see a different kind of darkness:

"Diamonds that rate below 2 (red on the chart) are unlikely to show too much leakage darkness..."

and by this, I take it we are talking about what may be a similar kind of experience of darkness...but one that tends to follow the diamond around, however it is viewed.

At least..I take it, it is something like this effect that we are looking for the HCA to be predicting to us.

Or...what else is HCA?

So, to review...for all positions, but some more than others (i.e., shallow), there will be a darkness experienced when looking close up

But...for well cut stones...with HCA of 0 - 2 trying to capture this aspect...apart from this "head/camera" close in effect, the diamond will be favorably bright, etc. but in degrees, less so, as the HCA number climbs higher above 2.

I think that''s right. Anyone care to check me?

 

[whatmeworry]

Date: 7/17/2007 12:03:12 AM
Author: hedarud
Harleigh, i appreciate your input, I am going to purchase this stone probably Thanks

Hedarud, if your purchase the stone...would you mind reporting back and telling us what you think of it? The pavillion angle is slightly lower than the stones normally seen here, so a first hand report would be useful.

I think GIA is giving it a Very Good Grade not because of the table (60%) but because of the pavillion angle (40.2/40.3).

 

[hedarud]

I will have this stone inspected by an apprasier and see if it lives up to its specs, H VS2, impressive HCA score, "hearts and arrows" comment given to me by the seller, we shall see. Thanks all for your input.

 

[Regular Guy]

Hedarud,

Some appraisers don''t know from HCA or Pricescope.

Do consider appraising the appraiser. GIGO.

Note, also...you should not feel as though you''re validating some other world system of thought presented here, either. But, if your appraiser is not, for example, sensitive to the sort of dynamics that would account for the differences in valuation of ideal vs excellent in diamonds, anyway...as represented in the contrasts you''ll find in the simple run of the data in the FAQ here, there may be little opportunity for their thinking out of the box entirely, and more positively evaluating a diamond that would not be evaluated as "well cut" under either AGS or GIA''s systems.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 7/17/2007 12:50:49 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 7/17/2007 12:38:06 AM
Author: JulieN
i notice the expected darkness in pictures with low pav angles.

So, to review...for all positions, but some more than others (i.e., shallow), there will be a darkness experienced when looking close up

Should have said, I notice the extra darkness associated with low pavilion angles.

 

[hedarud]

I think we ar going to meet with Charles Karmona, you think he will be OK ??? LOL, the seller told me he is very well respected, I dont know him, excuse my ignorance

 

[JulieN]

Date: 7/17/2007 1:47:40 AM
Author: hedarud
I think we ar going to meet with Charles Karmona, you think he will be OK ??? LOL, the seller told me he is very well respected, I dont know him, excuse my ignorance

Carmona.

You can search for him (experiences, reviews) on PS.

 

[Regular Guy]

Hedarud,

Moolman was not happy with him, for the reasons I have suggested you may not be. But, that was awhile ago. Maybe he''s gone to school on some of this.

Julie...

Date: 7/17/2007 1:42:07 AM
Author: JulieN

Date: 7/17/2007 12:50:49 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 7/17/2007 12:38:06 AM
Author: JulieN
i notice the expected darkness in pictures with low pav angles.

So, to review...for all positions, but some more than others (i.e., shallow), there will be a darkness experienced when looking close up

Should have said, I notice the extra darkness associated with low pavilion angles.

I am not so good at this stuff as to want to presume I apply it well enough to say this...and also...where you may notice this pattern by your own real observations...for which I have made rather few...I''m guessing this experience of yours is also tied into your lack of interest in using a tool like the search by cut db. In saying this, I''m guessing the extent to which Garry takes the crown/pavilion angle relationship thing is more than you go for. Would you say? Or...am I really just not getting it yet? This could be, too.

What''s confounding, somewhat, is the extent to which many both say...stay above 40.5...but also, who subscribe, more or less, at least, to the HCA. Seems like the logic is more or less continuous...and based on generalized ray tracing...consistent with what AGS does.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 7/17/2007 2:00:45 AM
Author: Regular Guy


I am not so good at this stuff as to want to presume I apply it well enough to say this...and also...where you may notice this pattern by your own real observations...for which I have made rather few...I''m guessing this experience of yours is also tied into your lack of interest in using a tool like the search by cut db. In saying this, I''m guessing the extent to which Garry takes the crown/pavilion angle relationship thing is more than you go for. Would you say? Or...am I really just not getting it yet? This could be, too.

What''s confounding, somewhat, is the extent to which many both say...stay above 40.5...but also, who subscribe, more or less, at least, to the HCA. Seems like the logic is more or less continuous...and based on generalized ray tracing...consistent with what AGS does.

Main reason I don''t use search by cut is because I can''t limit the price. I usually like to open up the options to D, IF, which returns lots of hits.

But the combo wouldn''t get AGS 0, anyway.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 7/17/2007 2:09:24 AM
Author: JulieN

a) What''s confounding, somewhat, is the extent to which many both say...stay above 40.5...but also, who subscribe, more or less, at least, to the HCA. Seems like the logic is more or less continuous...and based on generalized ray tracing...consistent with what AGS does.

b) Main reason I don''t use search by cut is because I can''t limit the price. I usually like to open up the options to D, IF, which returns lots of hits.

c) But the combo wouldn''t get AGS 0, anyway.

As referred to above:

a) still confounding

b) sure...but that should include a lota bad scoring diamonds, no? So long as you''re willing to wade through it, this is good.

c) yes, not getting AGS0...but I''m not sure that as HCA intends to mark the difference, there is a substantial difference between AGS0, and HCA 0 - 2, except for what is noted:

"Shallow stones (lower left on the chart) look darker if you have excellent close up vision because your head obstructs more light sources which makes a shallow diamond appear darker."

and yet...you sought to show the darkness was more broad than that. I think one of us applies the principles of HCA''s scores differently...and I''m not certain who''s right.

 

[hedarud]

So do you folks think this GIA stone that is 1.7ct H VS2 , "H & A" ideal polish, sym, no flor, VG cut is worth $12600 ?????

 

[strmrdr]

price is inline with others of that size and color.
But the angles are pretty sorry.
I think you could do better.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 7/17/2007 3:05:15 AM
Author: strmrdr
price is inline with others of that size and color.
But the angles are pretty sorry.
I think you could do better.

Storm, is your indictment of these angles also a criticism of HCA''s breadth & approach (you had expressed conversion tendencies), or just this particular diamond.

If the latter, what is distinctive about it?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/17/2007 3:11:23 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 7/17/2007 3:05:15 AM
Author: strmrdr
price is inline with others of that size and color.
But the angles are pretty sorry.
I think you could do better.

Storm, is your indictment of these angles also a criticism of HCA's breadth & approach (you had expressed conversion tendencies), or just this particular diamond.

If the latter, what is distinctive about it?

crown isnt high enough to counter the shallow pavilion.
Within the GIA averages for those angles it could hit fisheye
At best DC gives it a .75 for fisheye.
The static table brightness both mono and stereo is way down also.
The overall brightness is ok as is the tilt scores.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 7/17/2007 2:29:43 AM
Author: hedarud
So do you folks think this GIA stone that is 1.7ct H VS2 , 'H & A' ideal polish, sym, no flor, VG cut is worth $12600 ?????

diplomatic answer: need pics first.

 

[strmrdr]

What it really needs is a 56% table and higher crown angle to wake it up.
Notice the warning above about large tables.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 7/17/2007 3:23:06 AM
Author: strmrdr

Storm, is your indictment of these angles also a criticism of HCA''s breadth & approach (you had expressed conversion tendencies), or just this particular diamond.

If the latter, what is distinctive about it?

crown isnt high enough to counter the shallow pavilion.
Within the GIA averages for those angles it could hit fisheye
At best DC gives it a .75 for fisheye.
The static table brightness both mono and stereo is way down also.
The overall brightness is ok as is the tilt scores.

...and just so Hedarud can benefit a bit from what you''ve done...should anyone want to wander from established patterns of crown & pavilion matches...better have Diamondcalc to review the possible implications of it? HCA does give it 1.3 TIC, though in that, it does take a hit on brightness...Seems like, for your first statement...doesn''t at least HCA say that the crown IS high enough?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/17/2007 3:36:50 AM
Author: Regular Guy

...and just so Hedarud can benefit a bit from what you''ve done...should anyone want to wander from established patterns of crown & pavilion matches...better have Diamondcalc to review the possible implications of it? HCA does give it 1.3 TIC, though in that, it does take a hit on brightness...Seems like, for your first statement...doesn''t at least HCA say that the crown IS high enough?

This is one of those stones that at best might be VG and at worst a dog.
Give me a 3d helium scan based DC file or the actual diamond and ill tell ya which.