One out of three, opinions please!

[Nicccc]

#4 7.35 - 7.40 x 4.57 mm

 

[ringo865]

I like 2 and 4 of these. But I* love size and would drop clarity and/or color to get it. Not sure what color your stones are, I don't think you said.

 

[rockysalamander]

2 and 4 also, 4 looks slightly better in the photo, but 2 could be rotated a bit. Can they bring them both in for you to take your own aset?

 

[Matthews1127]

2 and 4 also, 4 looks slightly better in the photo, but 2 could be rotated a bit. Can they bring them both in for you to take your own aset?

Team #2 & #4!

 

[SimoneDi]

I prefer 4! 2 seems to have washed out arrows.. not sure if it is just the photo, but I am skeptical.
Also, I am so sorry but I am having hard time understanding why it is difficult to choose from VVS stones, even the majority of VS1 stones are completely clean! Perhaps what you saw was not inclusions, but dirt. I would absolutely drop clarity and go up a size a little, but the decision is yours in the end.

 

[Nicccc]

I prefer 4! 2 seems to have washed out arrows.. not sure if it is just the photo, but I am skeptical.
Also, I am so sorry but I am having hard time understanding why it is difficult to choose from VVS stones, even the majority of VS1 stones are completely clean! Perhaps what you saw was not inclusions, but dirt. I would absolutely drop clarity and go up a size a little, but the decision is yours in the end.

Hi, thank you very much! That's my concern too, why does #2 get a few washed out arrows...anyone got a clue?? I have been watching videos online, looking at photos of many other diamonds' from the same category, comparing them, and some of them have clear black arrows, others akin to #2, arrows look rather ' grey'. To make it worse #2 looks rather ' milky' to me but the sales have confirmed that it's not 'milky'..

Out of curious why everyone prefer #2 over #1? The arrows of #1 looks clearer and the stone shines better on photo( but it can be just because of the photo was taken with a better camera/photographer etc...)

To answer your question, hm, to be very brief,yes we are fully aware that even VS2 can be eye clean or most of them should be... the reason wasn't because of ' not being eye clean', but purely personal. The decision has been made and let's stick with it.

However can anyone kindly tell me why the photo of #2 looks washed out? - ie. grey arrows instead of black?

 

[Nicccc]

2 and 4 also, 4 looks slightly better in the photo, but 2 could be rotated a bit. Can they bring them both in for you to take your own aset?

thank you again for your kind advise! Due to its location I can't take the ASET then send it back.

Yes I thought the same, the symmetry of #2 look nicer but not the Color of the arrows
they looked washed out... not sure why...

How about #1, would you mind entail a little bit more why did you prefer # 2 and #4 over #1? Was that purely down to the CA and PA? Will the difference between the facet matter too?

 

[flyingpig]

I would not buy #2 without the ASET image. If you have it on hold, can you share the link to the diamond #2? Can't really make complete assessment.
It appears leaky, the edges look weird, contrast is non-existent.
It is very unexpected.

 

[Nicccc]

Thanks and sorry for not posting the link.
So they are all 3EX and None FLO. No milky diamond etc...

How about #1?

Thanks a lot!

I would not buy #2 without the ASET image. If you have it on hold, can you share the link to the diamond #2? Can't really make complete assessment.
It appears leaky, the edges look weird, contrast is non-existent.
It is very unexpected.

 

[Karl_K]

you could ask for a new pic of #2.

Honestly all 4 next to each other the average person would not be able to tell them apart if they are the same size.
Basically you have 2 pair of earnings if they are near the same size.

They would fall into ideal cut but maybe not super-ideal(not enough info).

 

[EvaEvans]

#2

 

[Nicccc]

Thanks a lot for your suggestion! Guess I will have to go ahead and ask for the possibility of having a new photo of #2.

Apart from that, #2#3#4 weight exactly the same.
#1 is .07 Carat lighter than the rests.

They are all 3EX cut, none Flour,none milky diamonds. All in the same Color. IF.

you could ask for a new pic of #2.

Honestly all 4 next to each other the average person would not be able to tell them apart if they are the same size.
Basically you have 2 pair of earnings if they are near the same size.

They would fall into ideal cut but maybe not super-ideal(not enough info).

 

[rockysalamander]

thank you again for your kind advise! Due to its location I can't take the ASET then send it back.

Why are you so committed to a vendor that does not appear to have a return policy and does not provide IS or ASET? This is not the norm, at least online.

 

[Nicccc]

Oh, sorry, new to here, anyway to send you a private msg?

Actually there are several of them. Those provided ASET didn't have the diamond we wanted, at least with HCA<1 plus what we are seeking. We have rejected a few after seeing ASET etc.
Return policy, yes to all. However there are personal reason etc and prefer to private msg instead. Can't figure out how... sorry.

thank you again for your kind advise! Due to its location I can't take the ASET then send it back.

Why are you so committed to a vendor that does not appear to have a return policy and does not provide IS or ASET? This is not the norm, at least online.

 

[rockysalamander]

No private messages, sorry.

I can see you are trying to learn and choose a great stone. I'm going to go back to basics here to make sure you understand how PS members typically approach diamond purchases online. I think you have imposed limits to your selection criteria that are not helping you.

GIA rated Excellent is a very wide category. Within that category, we recommend limiting your screening using the below specs to keep you within more narrow ranges that are more likely to show performance. AGS is more strict on cut, but may be 1 color off than GIA (IMHO).

table: 54-58 (I personally limit this to a max of 57.5)
depth: 60-62.3
crown angle: 34-35.0 (up to 35.5 crown angle can sometimes work with a 40.6 pav angle)
pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9 (sometimes 41.0 if the crown angle is close to 34)

If it looks good, then you can run the actual numbers through the HCA Tool (I frequency use the AGSL table as I suggested in an earlier post) to see how complimentary the angles shown are. The HCA tool is simply predicting performance within a set of ranges liked by the developer. There is absolutely NO reason to limit yourself to HCA less than 1, in fact, doing so is driving your choices to stone that may be less ideal for a ring. Most people prefer rings with 1-2 based on the HCA (although I keep anything under 2.0 in the running). Then, you look at the Idealscope (IS) or ASET to see actual performance. Look at videos to see how the facets behave and look for darkness under the table.

When well balanced, higher crowns and smaller tables will tend to have more fire. Low crowns and wider table tend to have less fire and the diamond will have a flatter appearance from the side. Neither is inherently good or bad, but many on PS members prefer firey diamonds. All else being equal, I prefer "chubby arrows" as they tend to provide better contrast in a diamond -- which is good.

I understand you want IF/FL. Just know that in setting that as a fixed criteria, you will be severely limiting your choices as many compromises in cut (the actual angles) are made to 'hit' that mark. There are also very few IF/FL in the market as compared to VVS. IF/FL are not flawless....that's just a label. They have no visible inclusions under 10x by a skilled observer (my grandmother said 10x was chosen based on the limits of most human's eyes, IDK if that is the truth). My advise would be to open up your criteria to VVS whose inclusions are still very hard to locate for the skilled observer. Adding these two clarity tiers will provide a lot more options to sift through to focus on performance and find a great diamond. Total respect your choice, but I just wanted to explain why folks here keep asking you about this.

We are asking about your budget, size and color to help provide you the best advice. We respect that you don't want to tell us this, but know that we are therefore limited in advising about the value you are getting and helping you find options. Many stones available online are from a virtual inventory and can be sourced by many vendors. If you are open to any vendor, then letting us in on your specs will let us look too. Again, your choice.

Edited to add. If you fear posting here will cause the diamond to get sold out from under you, I find that unlikely for a stone of the criteria you described. I suspect you have have 'lost' diamonds simply because there are so few that they move more quickly. Also, between now and the first of the year is a big time for diamond purchases, so demand may be higher.

 

[Nicccc]

Hi, thanks a lot for the posting and the AGSL table was great help!

Sorry in a rush to post and couldn't private msg limited my answers. In addition yes we tend to follow your para 4 and para 5 before we seeked advise from here. Due to a personal timeframe we will have to get it done and do have a deadline. But it won't be the last one we purchased whatsoever so a slightly less than ' best out of the best out of the bests' is ok and acceptable. We are very interesting in reading others' posts here and gather more and more knowledge for the next beauty too!! It's very helpful of all and thank you specifically for the posts! Just terribly sorry can't post the details here and understandable it limits the advise for you too.

Like others have mentioned the above are two pairs of earrings in average people eye. Not a bad combo of choices but surely always worth the wait for the most ideal next time!

But your advise are Super !!! Thank you so much! And thank everyone who have posted here!


Side note-- before we came here we were aware of the theory of HCA 0-1 better for pandents and earnings, HCA 1-2 better for rings. A Friend got several and she found them no difference -- she got both of them for rings.. but they performed better than those above HCA 3 which she blinded picked at her first time. After reading the reason why they are better for difference purposes I am still puzzled. Can anyone explain it in a less technique way? ( sorry was meant to aim at HCA around 1 instead of strictly < 1.)

No private messages, sorry.

I can see you are trying to learn and choose a great stone. I'm going to go back to basics here to make sure you understand how PS members typically approach diamond purchases online. I think you have imposed limits to your selection criteria that are not helping you.

GIA rated Excellent is a very wide category. Within that category, we recommend limiting your screening using the below specs to keep you within more narrow ranges that are more likely to show performance. AGS is more strict on cut, but may be 1 color off than GIA (IMHO).

table: 54-58 (I personally limit this to a max of 57.5)
depth: 60-62.3
crown angle: 34-35.0 (up to 35.5 crown angle can sometimes work with a 40.6 pav angle)
pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9 (sometimes 41.0 if the crown angle is close to 34)

If it looks good, then you can run the actual numbers through the HCA Tool (I frequency use the AGSL table as I suggested in an earlier post) to see how complimentary the angles shown are. The HCA tool is simply predicting performance within a set of ranges liked by the developer. There is absolutely NO reason to limit yourself to HCA less than 1, in fact, doing so is driving your choices to stone that may be less ideal for a ring. Most people prefer rings with 1-2 based on the HCA (although I keep anything under 2.0 in the running). Then, you look at the Idealscope (IS) or ASET to see actual performance. Look at videos to see how the facets behave and look for darkness under the table.

When well balanced, higher crowns and smaller tables will tend to have more fire. Low crowns and wider table tend to have less fire and the diamond will have a flatter appearance from the side. Neither is inherently good or bad, but many on PS members prefer firey diamonds. All else being equal, I prefer "chubby arrows" as they tend to provide better contrast in a diamond -- which is good.

I understand you want IF/FL. Just know that in setting that as a fixed criteria, you will be severely limiting your choices as many compromises in cut (the actual angles) are made to 'hit' that mark. There are also very few IF/FL in the market as compared to VVS. IF/FL are not flawless....that's just a label. They have no visible inclusions under 10x by a skilled observer (my grandmother said 10x was chosen based on the limits of most human's eyes, IDK if that is the truth). My advise would be to open up your criteria to VVS whose inclusions are still very hard to locate for the skilled observer. Adding these two clarity tiers will provide a lot more options to sift through to focus on performance and find a great diamond. Total respect your choice, but I just wanted to explain why folks here keep asking you about this.

We are asking about your budget, size and color to help provide you the best advice. We respect that you don't want to tell us this, but know that we are therefore limited in advising about the value you are getting and helping you find options. Many stones available online are from a virtual inventory and can be sourced by many vendors. If you are open to any vendor, then letting us in on your specs will let us look too. Again, your choice.

Edited to add. If you fear posting here will cause the diamond to get sold out from under you, I find that unlikely for a stone of the criteria you described. I suspect you have have 'lost' diamonds simply because there are so few that they move more quickly. Also, between now and the first of the year is a big time for diamond purchases, so demand may be higher.

 

[rockysalamander]

This is from the inventor of the HCA tool's website, quoting http://www.hollowaydiamonds.com.au/holloway-cut-adviser
"A score below 2 (Excellent) means you have eliminated known poor performers (more than 95% of all round diamonds). But a lower score is not the aim; many people prefer diamonds with an HCA score of 1.5 than those below 1.0. The red area on this chart represents the lowest HCA scores and stones near the center of the red region are often the least affected by small symmetry variations.

A shallower stone, on the lower part of the chart, will look darker when viewed from close up, they are not for everyone. Shallow stones have the advantage of a bigger spread. They are better suited for use as pendants and earring stones where they are not usually viewed from very close proximity (a close observers head obstructs light sources that would otherwise be returned).

Deeper proportioned stones, near the upper part of the red area, have more leakage and reduced light return. Diamonds with a large area of partial leakage table, seen as a pale area with an ideal-scope, are best set in open backed rings so light can get in the bottom or pavilion of the diamond."

 

[rockysalamander]

Now, I'm confused. Are you looking for earrings or a ring? For earrings, you really need the vendor to confirm that are well-matched in look and performance.

For earrings, I'd look at these (and WF has a great tradeup policy).
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-di...etails.aspx?Diamond1=3746449&Diamond2=3767826

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-di...etails.aspx?Diamond1=3855484&Diamond2=3916953

 

[Nicccc]

Oh after seeing the image of the above diamonds I finally understood what does ' looked darker' mean. ( read it on HCA section previously and didn't get it.) Didn't see anything dark enough previously but the above images, some are darker than the other. Good reminder!!!

It's for a ring! thanks a lot!

This is from the inventor of the HCA tool's website, quoting http://www.hollowaydiamonds.com.au/holloway-cut-adviser
"A score below 2 (Excellent) means you have eliminated known poor performers (more than 95% of all round diamonds). But a lower score is not the aim; many people prefer diamonds with an HCA score of 1.5 than those below 1.0. The red area on this chart represents the lowest HCA scores and stones near the center of the red region are often the least affected by small symmetry variations.

A shallower stone, on the lower part of the chart, will look darker when viewed from close up, they are not for everyone. Shallow stones have the advantage of a bigger spread. They are better suited for use as pendants and earring stones where they are not usually viewed from very close proximity (a close observers head obstructs light sources that would otherwise be returned).

Deeper proportioned stones, near the upper part of the red area, have more leakage and reduced light return. Diamonds with a large area of partial leakage table, seen as a pale area with an ideal-scope, are best set in open backed rings so light can get in the bottom or pavilion of the diamond."

 

[EvaEvans]

#2 & #4 have better proportions:
56% table is BETTER than 58%
15-15.5% crown height is BETTER than 13.5-14%
75% lower half is BETTER than 80%

 

[lalala]

#4 for me. I don't like #2's image

 

[Karl_K]

#2 & #4 have better proportions:
56% table is BETTER than 58%
15-15.5% crown height is BETTER than 13.5-14%
75% lower half is BETTER than 80%

Where in the world did you get the information?
1: false
2: mostly false
3: definitely false.

 

[Karl_K]

@Nicccc
Realistically there is only so much we can tell you with the information presented.
Better answers require more information.
The lack of information is leading to speculation and maybe a little frustration on how to help you better by some posters.
Don't take it personally.

High clarity and or high color are valid choices and your clearly making an educated decision and that should be respected.

 

[Nicccc]

Thank you so much for the help! It's was really great to have all of you here, otherwise it will be hard to obtain the knowledge we were seeking.

I apologise for not being able to post more than what I have been. But due to some circumstances I can't post the GIA. Very sorry about that. Let's blame the lack of private msg function here.

It's understandable that posters are only trying to help and were it be myself who was as keen to help others, the lack of GIA , budget might be a little frustrating for me too.

Having said that -- would you mind I ask a general question?

Out if the above 4, judging by the photos, which will suffer more shadow than others under circumstance when it causes shadows?

It looks # 3 out of the 4? Will it be #3>#1>#2>#4? Or to judge such thing a video is required?
Just came across a thread of the Emerald cut and there are definitely some cuttings suffer from more dark shadow than the others?

The attachment is just an example of what I meant by more shadows and the diamond I am looking for is Round Brilliant to avoid any confusion.

@Nicccc
Realistically there is only so much we can tell you with the information presented.
Better answers require more information.
The lack of information is leading to speculation and maybe a little frustration on how to help you better by some posters.
Don't take it personally.

High clarity and or high color are valid choices and your clearly making an educated decision and that should be respected.

 

[Karl_K]

ECs are a totally different cut with different considerations.
Up a couple posts in that thread I mentioned it.
There is far more variation in patterns possible in an EC than a modern rb.
With a mrb the only time darkness from obstruction is a real issue is with multiple shallow pavilion facet angles under 40.5(~40.45 actually).
Not to be confused with the arrows going dark at close viewing range which is expected and a good thing.

Darkness from leakage usually starts with the lower halves and with a 40.6 pavilion is is almost impossible for that to happen.
What can happen is pavilion digging causing leakage but it is pretty obvious in face up images when it gets to that point.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/do_pavilion_mains_drive_light_return_modern_round_brilliant

 

[Matthews1127]

Where in the world did you get the information?
1: false
2: mostly false
3: definitely false.

@Karl_K:
Can you elaborate on this, further? As a step-Cut enthusiast, MRB’s are a bit confusing to me, and l’m trying to wrap my head around all of these angles....

 

[Karl_K]

@Karl_K:
Can you elaborate on this, further? As a step-Cut enthusiast, MRB’s are a bit confusing to me, and l’m trying to wrap my head around all of these angles....

56% table isn't better than a 58% table, a very observant person might pick up the table size difference side by side but both can be part of a superbly cut diamond.

I said mostly false because CH is relative to the angles and table size.
Again its the same as above a 14% ch and a 15.5ch can both be part of a superbly cut diamond.

Some of the best stones I have ever seen had a 80% actual lgf%.
Different pavilion/crown angle combinations have different lgf% they work best with when you get to the ends of the super-ideal range like a fic and bic.
Others like a 40.8/34.5 will work with lgf% from 70 to 90 with different looks of course but will work well together.(with tables from 50 to 58 )
The article I linked to above also discusses other aspects of it, by changing the lgf% you change the lower girdle facets angle.
For example a slightly steep deep may have a lot of leakage at a 75% lgf% or even 78 and none at 80% lgf%(real angles not gia messed up numbers)
Gia rounding opens a can of worms, 77%-78% lgf% work well with a huge range of combinations.
One is GIA 75% the other GIA 80%. Its ridiculous, there is not a person alive who by eye can tell the difference face up in combinations they work with.

 

[Nicccc]

Oh, that's great advise! Ease our nerves now.

ECs are a totally different cut with different considerations.
Up a couple posts in that thread I mentioned it.
There is far more variation in patterns possible in an EC than a modern rb.
With a mrb the only time darkness from obstruction is a real issue is with multiple shallow pavilion facet angles under 40.5(~40.45 actually).
Not to be confused with the arrows going dark at close viewing range which is expected and a good thing.

Darkness from leakage usually starts with the lower halves and with a 40.6 pavilion is is almost impossible for that to happen.
What can happen is pavilion digging causing leakage but it is pretty obvious in face up images when it gets to that point.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/do_pavilion_mains_drive_light_return_modern_round_brilliant

 

[EvaEvans]

Where in the world did you get the information?

My eye and my experience in real life how diamonds perform.
There is math calculation about light return, but there is also aesthetic beauty.

 

[EvaEvans]

Its ridiculous, there is not a person alive who by eye can tell the difference face up in combinations they work with.

I will be able to see with my eye the difference between #1/#3 and #2/#4.