New diamond comparison

[faid2black]

i posted a comparison btwn two diamonds a couple days ago and you guys were great, recommending one of them... the first diamond here. after looking a little more, i found a h&a diamond for the same price from the same vendor (WF) and was wondering what your opinions were now...

diamond 1 (G and VS2):

Report: GIA
. Shape: Round Ideal Cut
. Carat: 1.00
. Depth %: 60.8
. Table %: 57
. Crown Angle: 35
. Crown %: 15
. Star : 55
. Pavilion Angle: 40.8
. Pavilion %: 43
. Lower Girdle %: 75
. Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
. Measurements: 6.46-6.49X3.94
. Polish: Very Good
. Symmetry: Excellent
. Culet: None
. Fluorescence: None

diamond 2 (H and SI1):

. Report: AGS
. Shape: A Cut Above H&A
. Carat: 1.021
. Depth %: 61
. Table %: 56.7
. Crown Angle: 34.7
. Crown %: 15.3
. Star : 53
. Pavilion Angle: 40.7
. Pavilion %: 42.8
. Lower Girdle %: 78
. Girdle: Thin Faceted
. Measurements: 6.52-6.54X3.97
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish: Ideal
. Symmetry: Ideal
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible

thanks again!!!

 

[faid2black]

oh wow, i just threw the numbers of diamond 2 into the cut advisor and it tells me that the total depth on this one means that the girdle is dangerously thin. is that right?

guess i won''t be considering this one anymore lol

 

[chrono]

I think there might have been a typo when you entered the numbers in the HCA advisor. The girdle is thin (not dangerously thin as you stated). My results yielded TIC 1.1, smack dab in the AGS0 box. ACAs are very well cut to very tight parameters. I have never seen an ACA "fail" the HCA and Idealscope tests.

ETA
The first stone came up with TIC 1.5 Any idealscope pictures to back it up?

 

[Ellen]

Ditto Chrono.


For the same price, I''d get the G. It''s a great looking stone, and I doubt you could tell a difference between them.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/8/2007 1:29:20 PM
Author: Chrono
The first stone came up with TIC 1.5 Any idealscope pictures to back it up?

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-283297.htm#

 

[chrono]

Thank you, Ellen. The ES stone is very beautiful. I doubt you will see any difference between the ES and ACA stones. I''d get whichever is cheaper.

 

[Ellen]

Welcome!

And he said it''s the same price, that''s why I said I''d get the G. Better color, and probably wouldn''t see the difference in performance.

 

[chrono]

Same price? For a grade better in clarity and colour? I''d take the ES too. I suppose the added cost on the ACA is due to the branding.

 

[faid2black]

ohhh maybe it was a typo. i was gonna say, i thought the h&a''s were very good cuts...

hrmmm can''t link to the idealscope, sarin or aset pics for the 1st diamond

or the 2nd for that matter.

for the most part, i am pretty set on the 1st diamond. i just want to make sure it holds its own against others in that price range

and that''s where you guys come in

thanks again

 

[faid2black]

oh wow, you are fast

thanks a lot ellen for helping out on both threads

i think i just might have to go ahead with the ES diamond

i couldn''t imagine doing all of this on my own, i really do appreciate both of ur input

 

[Ellen]

You''re welcome!

Now get that reserved before you lose it!

 

[faid2black]

hehe

i am, in fact doing that right now

oh no, and now i need to think about when exactly i want to do it. probably some time near the holidays since our anny is very close to then

 

[:)]

Late to enter but I agree with getting the ES G!

 

[MrNyceGuy]

Faid,

It seems to come down to the inclusions to be honest. They both appear well cut and only one color grade different which you''ll never notice by eye. In a round brilliant I''d go down to I color at the lowest, maybe J depending on the cut. So IMO you''re safe there. I''d prefer the ACA stone, but only if the inclusions are white and do not show when the diamond is face up. I just bought a 2.6ct H SI2 from whiteflash and I was able to see it in person when I had it appraised and I was amazed at how clean and beautiful it was. It wasn''t an ACA and it''s clarity was lower than either of those stones you mentioned. I think it all depends on the images and whether you can see the inclusions or not. If you want to be safe as far as being eye clean go for the G, but personally I''d really look into the H ACA first.

 

[faid2black]

okay, so i have the 1st diamond reserved but will still be evaluating other options until i fully commit to it.

Still kinda considering the H&A above

also thinking about this diamond:

here

Report: GIA
. Shape: Round Ideal Cut
. Carat: 1.05
. Depth %: 62.1
. Table %: 56
. Crown Angle: 35
. Crown %: 15.5
. Star : 55
. Pavilion Angle: 41
. Pavilion %: 43
. Lower Girdle %: 75
. Girdle: Medium Faceted
. Measurements: 6.51-6.54X4.05
. Polish: Very Good
. Symmetry: Very Good
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible

In your opinions, are the differences btwn the diamond i have reserved and this latest one worth the extra $500?

thanks again

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/12/2007 5:24:09 PM
Author: faid2black

In your opinions, are the differences btwn the diamond i have reserved and this latest one worth the extra $500?

thanks again

This new one looks great, I don''t see anything wrong with it. So if everyone is ok with H, I don''t see any reason to pay more.

 

[faid2black]

ya, thanks ellen

it''s tough cuz i know the one i reserved gets a better score on the cut adviser, but i wonder if it''s a big enough difference in person to warrant the extra $$$

the way i look at it is if i stick with the one i''ve reserved, i''d just get the basic setting from WF. but if i go for a diamond like this latest one, i could get something like a sleek setting and come out cheaper in the end.

ughhhhh decisions lol

btw, for those of you that have seen the basic WF setting in person... what have ur thoughts been?

 

[Ellen]

The IS on the new one says it''s a great stone, but how about this. Call WF and have them compare the two and pick the better one. Then no worries.