One out of three, opinions please!

[EvaEvans]

For example a slightly steep deep may have a lot of leakage at a 75% lgf% or even 78 and none at 80% lgf%

Many times larger lower half (80-85%) is used to cover up the swallow crown depth, steep crown angle and larger table giving more tiny light dispersion.

Everything is about combination of proportions. For example: the ideal OEC with 65% lower half.
We are talking here about COMBINATION of proportions, so diamonds #2 and #4 have better combinations of angles, % and aspect ratio.

 

[EvaEvans]

Some of the best stones I have ever seen had a 80% actual lgf%.

Some of the best diamonds that I have seen are NOT superbly ideal cut at all! One lower half does not make anything by itself. All is mix and combination of cut, color, clarity, carat weight and aesthetic preferences.
I was trying to be short in my answer. @Nicccc is asking: which diamond to choose? #1, #2, #3, #4?
@Karl_K, why don't you focus to answer the questions of @Nicccc, instead of writing a complete lecture about my short statement?

 

[Nicccc]

Oh , thank you very much for the posts, I always meant to ask but didn't manage to post, what is OEC?

Many times larger lower half (80-85%) is used to cover up the swallow crown depth, steep crown angle and larger table giving more tiny light dispersion.

Everything is about combination of proportions. For example: the ideal OEC with 65% lower half.
We are talking here about COMBINATION of proportions, so diamonds #2 and #4 have better combinations of angles, % and aspect ratio.

 

[Matthews1127]

OEC=Old European Cut.
It’s an old diamond cut style that diamonds were cut before the turn of the Century, sometime before the 1900’s, and into the 1920’s. l believe Old Mine Cuts existed around the same time period (l could be mistaken in my history). The Transitional Cut began around the 20’s-40’s, and then, as cutting technology expanded, the more modern rounds were starting to take shape.

 

[Matthews1127]

OEC=Old European Cut.
It’s an old diamond cut style that diamonds were cut before the turn of the Century, sometime before the 1900’s, and into the 1920’s. l believe Old Mine Cuts existed around the same time period (l could be mistaken in my history). The Transitional Cut began around the 20’s-40’s, and then, as cutting technology expanded, the more modern rounds were starting to take shape.

https://erstwhilejewelry.com/blogs/stories/history-of-diamond-cutting

 

[Nicccc]

oh folks, thank you so much for your posts and I believe it benefits a lot more audience than those who are actually posting. Guess what? #2 and #4 are now both gone . Don't ask...

After reading all your comments from a very experienced aspects I really appreciated all your input Abd patient with me. Feeling so sorry to ask your opinions of another two maybe? This is a reference for our searching as we are definitely picking up more Dos and don'ts from this thread, so grateful for all your inputs ...

So we are now either back to the circles of seeking for more -- as you know there is a deadline ahead of us and also the closer to the year end the peaker season it becomes; or go to buy #1... we can always return it should we seen anything nicer within a month's time.

So the following two were our original options, but they were gone more than a month ago due to we were not as fast as some others...

But for a reference purpose, would you mind kindly comment on the following #5 and # 6? How do they compared to #4 and #2?

Will post them one by one but for these two we don't have photos..

Thanks a lot!

 

[Nicccc]

# 5
7.32-7.37*4.54mm

 

[Nicccc]

Forgot to say, both are the same Color and clarity as the rests. Thank you so much for your comments!

#6 7.65-7.67* 4.78mm

 

[Nicccc]

# 6 Amended:


Sorry, made a mistake.

#6 is actually a VVS1.

In GIA comments, comment : surface graining is no shown.

-- will this make it a worse choice than the rests?

Forgot to say, both are the same Color and clarity as the rests. Thank you so much for your comments!

#6 7.65-7.67* 4.78mm

 

[SimoneDi]

Both of these seem to be nice stones! I would probably lean toward 6 because it is larger. Surface training not shown is nothing to worry about in a VVS1! Surface graining note on a report refers to irregularities in the diamond’s structure. I would not be worries about that comment. Surface graining can be present in IF stones as well, so please don't think that it is VVS1 fault

 

[Nicccc]

So what do you think of #7?

Thanks a lot!
#7

 

[SimoneDi]

So what do you think of #7?

Thanks a lot!
#7

Measurements please?

35.5 crown angle would make me want to see an IS/ASET. It does have the potential for being a great and fiery stone.

 

[Nicccc]

Sorry forgot to post the dimension:

7.32-7.37*4.53mm

It's lighter than #2&#4 though.

So what do you think of #7?

Thanks a lot!
#7

 

[SimoneDi]

If they are the same appx price, I would still go with 6. It will be visibly larger and perfectly clean!

 

[Nicccc]

Can anyone kindly offer your thoughts between #1 and #7? How about base on numbers what's the rank of #7 compare to #2 &#4?

Will #7 in the same league of #2 &#4? Sorry SImoneDi, like I said #6 is gone ... can't really choose it

However, thank you so much for telling me why did you think #2 and or #4 is a good choice! Very much appreciated! I really appreciated you took the time to send me links and tables and etc to tell me not only which one but also why did you think so -- all of you are very helpful!!! Can't be more grateful, Abd, sorry #7 is a tiny bit smaller than #2 & #4... since # 2&#4 are both gone now I am afraid I can't really post any more. Thank you so much folks!!! I believe your posts also helped to make up minds of other purchasers too.


@rockysalamander,@Karl_K,@EvaEvans

 

[Nicccc]

Any thoughts re # 7, the new option?
7.32-7.37*4.53mm

Can it rival #2 &#4?

Thank you so much!!!

#2 would be my choice. Smaller table and CA close to my ideal at 34.5. But, the numbers don't guarantee it is cut well, has good symmetry and will perform well. Have you at least seen pictures? I'm not clear on why there is such time pressure---but I would not buy without vetting with a photo and video unless they have an amazing, no questions asked return policy.

 

[Nicccc]

7.32-7.37*4.53mm

Can you kindly comment on #7? Does it rival #2 &#4?( latter two gone now...)thanks a million!
It's slightly lighter than #2&#4. (-.02 Carat )

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).

 

[Karl_K]

Pic of #7?
The combination unless there is painting/digging or messed up mains is unlikely to have leakage issues.
40.6 pavilion is the right match for a 35.5 crown.

 

[Nicccc]

Thank you Karl,

I haven't got it yet. Will post once I receive it.

How do I tell is there any painting/ digging?

There aren't any comment on the GIA report.

Thanks again for your time and posting!

Pic of #7?
The combination unless there is painting/digging or messed up mains is unlikely to have leakage issues.
40.6 pavilion is the right match for a 35.5 crown.

 

[SimoneDi]

Thank you Karl,

I haven't got it yet. Will post once I receive it.

How do I tell is there any painting/ digging?

There aren't any comment on the GIA report.

Thanks again for your time and posting!

Painting is usually best visible on the ASET, but I definitely prefer 7 over 1. Sad about 6, but oh well, 7 is still a good pick!

 

[lalala]

OP, are you putting these diamonds on hold? If not, I highly suggest you do so people have time to reply here.

 

[EvaEvans]

From what's still available #7 looks good to me.

 

[Nicccc]

From what's still available #7 looks good to me.

Thank you, the photo is coming shortly.

Would you mind kindly let me know your opinion of where does it rate compare to # 2 & #4?
( just trying to figure out whether keep looking, wait a little bit longer or go ahead.) thanks a lot!

 

[Nicccc]

#7 7.32-7.37*4.53mm

 

[Nicccc]

Pic of #7?
The combination unless there is painting/digging or messed up mains is unlikely to have leakage issues.
40.6 pavilion is the right match for a 35.5 crown.

Just posted, thanks for your time and comment!

 

[EvaEvans]

Would you mind kindly let me know your opinion of where does it rate compare to # 2 & #4?

Table size of 57% is slightly larger for the crown height of 15.5%. This particular combination of 57% & 15.5% leads to crown angle of 35.5%, that is 0.5% over the ideal crown angle range of 34-35%.
Still a good stone, in my opinion.

 

[Karl_K]

Just posted, thanks for your time and comment!

I'm not seeing any indications of anything seriously wrong.
Which is the best that can be said with that image type.

 

[Nicccc]

Some more information here, thank you all for further comments.

#7

Carat weight

1.51

Shape

Round

Cut

Ideal

Length/width ratio

1.01

Depth %

61.7%

Table %

57.0%

Polish

Excellent

Symmetry

Excellent

Girdle

Medium to Slightly Thick

Culet

None

Fluorescence

None

Measurements

7.37 x 7.32 x 4.53 mm


#2

Carat weight

1.53

Shape

Round

Cut

Ideal

Length/width ratio

1.00

Depth %

60.3%

Table %

56.0%

Polish

Excellent

Symmetry

Excellent

Girdle

Thin to Medium

Culet

None

Fluorescence

None

Measurements

7.51 x 7.48 x 4.52 mm



#1

Carat weight

1.46

Shape

Round

Cut

Ideal

Length/width ratio

1.01

Depth %

60.2%

Table %

58.0%

Polish

Excellent

Symmetry

Excellent

Girdle

Medium to Slightly Thick

Culet

None

Fluorescence

None

Measurements

7.38 x 7.34 x 4.43 mm

 

[Nicccc]

Thanks a million!
I have posted additional information just now.
Will those help to further comment?

Re the image-- sorry perhaps another very junior question. I am possibly looking at he wrong points and not focus on the arrows etc.

1) # 1's contrast is far better than #7 &#2
Is that only because of the photographer and the camera but not the performance of the diamonds?

2) it's just a still image so maybe I shouldn't judge from it only. Albeit I don't have videos of any of them. To me it looks like # 1 is more alive in terms of fire and scintillation than #7 & #2? Or I am wrong to judge those by a still photo?

I'm not seeing any indications of anything seriously wrong.
Which is the best that can be said with that image type.

 

[Karl_K]

I think your reading to much into the pics.
The focus, alignment and depth of field are slightly different in each pic.
The pics will show glaring huge issues but are not good for judging smaller details.
I'm not seeing indications of huge issues.