Needing help...which of these two should I go with?

[brightstone]

I am trying to decide which of these two diamonds is a better buy and will be a prettier stone. I am someone who is not bothered by inclusions, AS LONG AS they cannot be seen to the naked eye. Both of these stones have been said to be eye clean by the vendor. Sorry, but I couldn't figure out how to make the hyperlinks, so if you have the patience to cut and past them, thank you!! Which do you think is better?? Thanks so much, ahead of time!

Diamond #1:
1.31 ct
GIA
Cut: "Very Good"
G
SI2
Eye Clean, per vendor
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Cutlet: None
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick
Florescence: None
Table: 58% / Depth: 63.1%
[URL='http://']http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-1181449.htm[/URL]


OR

Diamond #2:
1.31 ct
Supposed Ideal cut, but the GIA cert doesn't list cut grade, but only lists table and depth percentages. Why? It's an older cert from 2005....does the older cert mean the diamond has not sold and I could assume something's off with it or more likely may have been owned before and it's a good stone?
Color: E
Clarity: SI2
Eye Clean, per vendor
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Cutlet: None
Girdle: Thin
Florescence: Faint
Table: 55% / Depth: 61.5%
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/E-SI2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1118772.asp

 

[Cleo]

To be honest with you, I would pass on the Whiteflash stone. It''s not a great cut and you can do a lot better.

It scores 5.2 on the HCA which means I would certainly reject it. (Aim for a score of between 0 and 2).

The James Allen stone looks like it might be nicer, but the report doesn''t give the Crown & Pavilion angles.

I would call JA and ask them to send you a Idealscope image of this diamond - and that will let us know if it''s a winner.

x x x

 

[brightstone]

Thanks...so, here I go to research what an idealscope will tell me (I have no idea, but am learning FAST!). Thanks for the advice.

 

[Cleo]

Don't worry tooooo much (although it's good to read about it if you want to learn).

Feel free to post the image here when you get it though.

x x x

 

[honey22]

The JA is listed as not available! Do you have it on hold?

 

[brightstone]

Yes! I have had others disappear on me (being sold while I consider), so doing it right this time now that I have found what I believe might be a good one for me.

 

[honey22]

If you are seriously considering a stone, I would put it on reserve before asking questions about it here. Many lukers find out heaps of info and recommendations on particular stones others have posted and it wouldn''t be the first time a stone was snatched out from underneath you. I am not saying there are sneakies around here, but I would think about a hold first, especially in a popular colour clarity size combo etc.

Can you ask WF to recommend another stone in your budget, maybe an ACA or ES range. I am not keen on that first one you posted sorry. I am sure they can find you a lovely one in your price range.

 

[brightstone]

Honey22,
you said you did not like the first stone I posted. What about the second one? Any thoughts on that one?
Thanks for your time!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/21/2008 1:26:51 AM
Author: brightstone
Honey22,
you said you did not like the first stone I posted. What about the second one? Any thoughts on that one?
Thanks for your time!

Brightstone, I can''t get the link for the second diamond to work...

 

[Cleo]

Date: 8/21/2008 4:31:08 AM
Author: Lorelei

Brightstone, I can''t get the link for the second diamond to work...

Lorelei, you have to copy & paste the link, the OP didn''t link it properly.

x x x

 

[brightstone]

Sorry about the link not working. I am new to this, tried to get it to work, but had trouble...not sure why the other went through fine.

 

[Cleo]

Here''s the link.

x x x

 

[brightstone]

So, I think I am going to go with this stone (#2), but I do not have an idealscope and probably won''t be able to get one in time before I need to purchase. Here is a picture of the diamond (attached). Does this help at all with determining if "it''s a winner" or if the HCA is good??
Diamond #2:
1.31 ct
GIA Excellent cut
Color: E
Clarity: SI2
Eye Clean, per vendor
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Cutlet: None
Girdle: Thin
Florescence: Faint
Table: 55% / Depth: 61.5%

 

[Lorelei]

Thanks Cleo!

It does look like a nice diamond from the pic, it appears the report is pre cut grade, so no crown and pavilion angles. You could ask James Allen to run a Sarin report on the diamond, or provide an Idealscope image, otherwise you will have to decide on the photo or see the diamond in person.

 

[brightstone]

WF did come back with a better quality diiamond, so I am now comparing and deciding on these two. They are both $7300, after ps discount....exact same price. I am still waiting to get the Sarin report on the 1.31 to judge HCA, and will post it as soon as I get it. The 1.31 is reported to be eye clean. the 1.214, you can see the inclusions within a few inches of the stone, but not otherwise.

1.214 CT
Color: E
Clarity: SI2 (inclusion visible to the eye only within .a couple inches of stone)
Report: AGS
. Shape: A Cut Above H&A
. Carat: 1.214
. Depth %: 60.9
. Table %: 56.1
. Crown Angle: 34.6
. Crown %: 15.1
. Star : 51
. Pavilion Angle: 40.7
. Pavilion %: 42.9
. Lower Girdle %: 76
. Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
1.31 ct
GIA Excellent cut
Color: E
Clarity: SI2
Eye Clean, per vendor
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Cutlet: None
Girdle: Thin
Florescence: Faint
Table: 55%
Depth: 61.5%

 

[Lorelei]

The 1.21 looks great, so when you have the rest of the info for the other diamond, post it then we can go from there.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/21/2008 4:25:45 PM
Author: brightstone


WF did come back with a better quality diiamond, so I am now comparing and deciding on these two. They are both $7300, after ps discount....exact same price. I am still waiting to get the Sarin report on the 1.31 to judge HCA, and will post it as soon as I get it. The 1.31 is reported to be eye clean. the 1.214, you can see the inclusions within a few inches of the stone, but not otherwise.

Personally, this may bother me..I know you said you are not fazed by inclusions, but do you think it would bother you if you knew where they were and could find them quite easily..?
Do you mind if I ask what the deadline is? I would wait to find a cleaner Si2 - you can get completely eyeclean si2's, do WF have any other options for you?
Have you considered GOG?

Here are some nice options from them:

1.22 H SI1 ~$7400 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4433/

1.24 I SI1 ~7100 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4585/ (not sure what your desire is for colour range, but an I from GOG is still v. white - I have a K and its white as can be

)

1.29 I SI1 Tolkowsy cut ~ $7600 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4604/ this would be a gorgeous stone..

1.22 G Si2 ~6800 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4679/ Need to ask, but this looks like a fab SI2. Actually if I were in the market I would be tempted by this guy..

1.28 E Si2 ~7500 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4760/ another nice looking SI2,(confirm with vendor) - and big

I hope you don't mind me posting other options..I just wanted you to know you don't have to "settle" for visible inclusions. You can easily go to SI1 it seems and stay in your budget/size range..

To be honest, I would probably choose any of the GOG stones over the JA or WF one..
just my 0.02, I hope I haven't confused the issue further or anything!

 

[honey22]

Date: 8/22/2008 6:17:05 AM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 8/21/2008 4:25:45 PM
Author: brightstone



WF did come back with a better quality diiamond, so I am now comparing and deciding on these two. They are both $7300, after ps discount....exact same price. I am still waiting to get the Sarin report on the 1.31 to judge HCA, and will post it as soon as I get it. The 1.31 is reported to be eye clean. the 1.214, you can see the inclusions within a few inches of the stone, but not otherwise.

Personally, this may bother me..I know you said you are not fazed by inclusions, but do you think it would bother you if you knew where they were and could find them quite easily..?
Do you mind if I ask what the deadline is? I would wait to find a cleaner Si2 - you can get completely eyeclean si2''s, do WF have any other options for you?
Have you considered GOG?

Here are some nice options from them:

1.22 H SI1 ~$7400 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4433/

1.24 I SI1 ~7100 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4585/ (not sure what your desire is for colour range, but an I from GOG is still v. white - I have a K and its white as can be

)

1.29 I SI1 Tolkowsy cut ~ $7600 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4604/ this would be a gorgeous stone..

1.22 G Si2 ~6800 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4679/ Need to ask, but this looks like a fab SI2. Actually if I were in the market I would be tempted by this guy..

1.28 E Si2 ~7500 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4760/ another nice looking SI2,(confirm with vendor) - and big

I hope you don''t mind me posting other options..I just wanted you to know you don''t have to ''settle'' for visible inclusions. You can easily go to SI1 it seems and stay in your budget/size range..

To be honest, I would probably choose any of the GOG stones over the JA or WF one..
just my 0.02, I hope I haven''t confused the issue further or anything!

Sorry, been MIA a bit lately (wisdom teeth surgery

). Anyhoo, I wouldn''t settle for the visible inclusions either. I would ask WF if they have something else in their ACA range (stunning stones) that are totally eyeclean in budget.

Or, I do like some of the stones AJ picked. I am assuming you want to stick to the colourless / near-colourless range, so I second the notion for the G SI2 or E Si2 from GOG, both really lovely stones, Just check first for eyecleanliness. Good luck!

 

[brightstone]

Thanks for the recommendations everyone!! I am learning so much, it''s crazy...and super interesting too. I will check out those GOG recommendations.

I am still waiting on the Sarin report from JA on this one, but I am a little concerned because no one seems to be "ooooing and awwwing" at this one. It seems like a good deal for $7300, and it is eye clean. Are people not "oooing and awwwing" only because of the lacking Sarin report/idealscope that I am still waiting on or is it because of something in the quality of the stone that you guys see that I am not aware of?

Diamond #2:
1.31 ct
Supposed Ideal cut, but the GIA cert doesn''t list cut grade, but only lists table and depth percentages. I am waiting on a Sarin report from JA
Color: E
Clarity: SI2
Eye Clean, per vendor
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Cutlet: None
Girdle: Thin
Florescence: Faint
Table: 55% / Depth: 61.5%
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/E-SI2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1118772.asp

 

[brightstone]

Lorelei,

You said that "it appears from the pictures that it is pre-cut grade". What does pre-cut grade mean? The cut was graded prior to cutting not after?

Thanks!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/22/2008 9:26:22 AM
Author: brightstone
Thanks for the recommendations everyone!! I am learning so much, it''s crazy...and super interesting too. I will check out those GOG recommendations.

I am still waiting on the Sarin report from JA on this one, but I am a little concerned because no one seems to be ''ooooing and awwwing'' at this one. It seems like a good deal for $7300, and it is eye clean. Are people not ''oooing and awwwing'' only because of the lacking Sarin report/idealscope that I am still waiting on or is it because of something in the quality of the stone that you guys see that I am not aware of?

Diamond #2:
1.31 ct
Supposed Ideal cut, but the GIA cert doesn''t list cut grade, but only lists table and depth percentages. I am waiting on a Sarin report from JA
Color: E
Clarity: SI2
Eye Clean, per vendor
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Cutlet: None
Girdle: Thin
Florescence: Faint
Table: 55% / Depth: 61.5%
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/E-SI2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1118772.asp

Until you get the Sarin report for the crown and pavilion angles in particular, we have no way of knowing really how well cut the JA diamond is - it looks promising, but the crown and pavilion angles are crucial to drive performance / sparkle. So post the Sarin when you get it, then we will know more.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/22/2008 9:28:23 AM
Author: brightstone
Lorelei,

You said that 'it appears from the pictures that it is pre-cut grade'. What does pre-cut grade mean? The cut was graded prior to cutting not after?

Thanks!

GIA have only been grading round diamonds for cut since early 2006, so by pre cut grade, I mean before this time. Diamonds which are pre cut grade don't have all the information available to judge the cut, diamonds graded from Jan 2006 and after will have that info on the report. That is why a Sarin report is so useful in these cases.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 8/22/2008 9:26:22 AM
Author: brightstone
Thanks for the recommendations everyone!! I am learning so much, it''s crazy...and super interesting too. I will check out those GOG recommendations.


I am still waiting on the Sarin report from JA on this one, but I am a little concerned because no one seems to be ''ooooing and awwwing'' at this one. It seems like a good deal for $7300, and it is eye clean. Are people not ''oooing and awwwing'' only because of the lacking Sarin report/idealscope that I am still waiting on or is it because of something in the quality of the stone that you guys see that I am not aware of?

It looks nice. It seems to be a bit shallow crown/deeper pavilion. That''s why it''s cheaper. It''s not a bad thing...actually looks like a very nice make to me. The lack of oohs and ahhs is probably because it''s not a Tolkowsky H&A. I sometimes think PS teaches most people to recognize pictures of H&A, and anything else that isn''t...isn''t.

But let''s get the IS and Sarin.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/22/2008 9:33:30 AM
Author: JulieN

Date: 8/22/2008 9:26:22 AM
Author: brightstone
Thanks for the recommendations everyone!! I am learning so much, it''s crazy...and super interesting too. I will check out those GOG recommendations.


I am still waiting on the Sarin report from JA on this one, but I am a little concerned because no one seems to be ''ooooing and awwwing'' at this one. It seems like a good deal for $7300, and it is eye clean. Are people not ''oooing and awwwing'' only because of the lacking Sarin report/idealscope that I am still waiting on or is it because of something in the quality of the stone that you guys see that I am not aware of?

It looks nice. It seems to be a bit shallow crown/deeper pavilion. That''s why it''s cheaper. It''s not a bad thing...actually looks like a very nice make to me. The lack of oohs and ahhs is probably because it''s not a Tolkowsky H&A. I sometimes think PS teaches most people to recognize pictures of H&A, and anything else that isn''t...isn''t.

But let''s get the IS and Sarin.

Actually we are trying to rectify that, as not everyone wants a superideal, so we are trying to find out and keep in mind what each buyer wants in order to be able to advise them appropriately.

 

[brightstone]

BTW, thank you Honey22 for the GOG leads!!

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/22/2008 10:00:14 AM
Author: brightstone
BTW, thank you Honey22 for the GOG leads!!

 

[brightstone]

Awwww...that little guy is so cute. I feel so bad....I mean thank you arjunajane for your GOG leads!!! I like the 1.28 I think. I have put thatand the 1.22 in my spreadsheet (making for easy comparison), and have called GOG to see whether they are eye clean. What''s your experience with GOG response time? I e-mailed them once and left a message once on one other diaomond that turned out not to be eye clean, but it took a couple of days before they got back to me. This time I left a voicemail at a particular extension, not the general box, so hopefully that will be quicker.

 

[brightstone]

Nevermind......called again. got a live person right away

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/22/2008 10:55:11 AM
Author: brightstone
Awwww...that little guy is so cute. I feel so bad....I mean thank you arjunajane for your GOG leads!!! I like the 1.28 I think. I have put thatand the 1.22 in my spreadsheet (making for easy comparison), and have called GOG to see whether they are eye clean. What's your experience with GOG response time? I e-mailed them once and left a message once on one other diaomond that turned out not to be eye clean, but it took a couple of days before they got back to me. This time I left a voicemail at a particular extension, not the general box, so hopefully that will be quicker.

Ha ha, thats ok I was just mock-sad

Me personally, I have only ever contacted them via email due to the time difference (I'm in Aus.)..sometimes I waited, but usually Jon was pretty good.
He's a pretty busy guy though, as he likes to give alot of attention to each customer..
I do understand the feeling of wanting to know *now* when you think you're onto a winner though, lol!

Good luck, I hope the G is eyeclean as it looks lovely !

ETA: posting at the same time - how'd it go?

 

[brightstone]

So, GOG says that:

1.22 H SI1 ~$7400 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4433/ - this one is eye clean.

1.22 G Si2 ~6800 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4679/ Need to ask, but this looks like a fab SI2. Actually if I were in the market I would be tempted by this guy.. - (this one you can only see the inclusion is you look really carefulyl within a couple of inches of the diamond).

1.28 E Si2 ~7500 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4760/ another nice looking SI2,(confirm with vendor) - and big - This one you can see the largest inclusion on the face when you rock the diamond back and forth

Tricky finding eyecleans within SI2!