Opinions Needed On Stone - Please Advise :)

[NoonersMom]

Hi Folks,

First, I''d like to thank the academy of arm chair appraisers & true blue appraisers here. hehe. Seriously, this site is a great source of information & one that I recommend to anyone looking to purchase a stone. Thank you to everyone for offering their knowledge and opinions as we common folk couldn''t learn a pinpoint of information otherwise.

After waiting for the last three or four months, my partner & I are ready to purchase a stone. (He''s letting me pick stone & setting...woohoo!) It''s come down to decision time & I would like to get a few opinions. Unfortunately everytime I''ve tried to attach photos, it ends with me being frustrated & unsuccessful so I am just going to provide links. Maybe someone will be kind enough to help attach IS photos.

At any rate, these are the three stones that I am considering. The experts eyes at the store
are comparing them & hopefully I will have an opinion in hand later today. However, I thought I would see what the chorus here has to say. Here we go:

Option #1:
CT: 1.122
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 60.7
Table: 55
Crown Angle: 34.8
Crown %: 15.5
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 43.1
Girdle: Thin/Faceted
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 6.76-6.79X4.11
HCA: 1.3
http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-5285107#

Option #2
Carat: 1.170
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 60.8
Table: 55
Crown Angle: 35.1
Crown %: 15.7
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 42.9
Girdle: Thin
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 6.86-6.88X4.18
HCA: 1.6

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-5130703

Option #3

Carat: 1.27
Color: H
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 60.7
Table: 56
Crown Angle: 35
Crown %: 15.3
Pavilion Angle: 40.9
Pavilion %: 43.2
Girdle: Very Thin-Medium Faceted
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Medium Blue
Measurements: 7.03-7.05X4.27
HCA: 1.8
Please note that on the certificate, it states & shows 3 or 4 twinning wisps. From everything that I have read, this will not affect the durability. Is this correct? How, if at all, will it affect the optical performance?

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=GIA-13252067

Based on my eyes, it''s a toss up between option #1 & option #2. I am hoping for a stone that is a little more fire than brillance, but won''t turn one away that has a beautiful combination of the two.

Thanks in advance. I truly appreciate your advice & look forward to reading your thoughts!

~Nooners Mom (yes, we have a dog named Nooner....lol)

 

[loupe]

Go with what looks best to you. The numbers mean nothing if the diamond doesn''t talk to you, literally screaming "BUY ME!, CHOOSE ME!". The ability of a diamond to return light to your eye is adversely affected by far more inclusions than you describe. Good choice of company, stick with whiteflash.








"Gold there is, and rubies in abundance, but lips that speak knowledge are a rare jewel."

 

[NoonersMom]

Thanks Loupe for the post. Unfortunately I am not able to see them in person as I live in Wisconsin (sorry, should of made that clear in original post). I am leaning a certain way, but would love honest feedback. Although I''ve been reading up, I am by no means an expert & would like to either confirm my knowledge in action or the opportunity to learn a little more. Again, thanks for the response. And yes, I feel you really can''t go wrong w/WF.

 

[glitterata]

Well, if the question were "Which one should I give Glitterata for her birthday," the answer would be "Definitely #3!" I love fluorescence, and that idealscope looks lovely.

 

[NoonersMom]

Glitterata....lol.....thanks for your $.02. I appreciate it. I think they all look lovely. That''s why I am at a loss. Since no one else has piped in I will wait for the gang at WF to come back with their opinions. Thanks again Glitterata. I really appreciate it.

Anyone else? Please don''t hold back! lol.

 

[drk]

They all look like nice stones. I''ll be really interested to see what they tell you at Whiteflash...
Do you have any concerns about the very thin-med girdle on #3? I think thin-sl thick was the ideal to aim for - too thin and there''d be more danger of chipping.
Good luck!

 

[fire&ice]

I''m a blue fluor gal also - so I''m with 3. All of the stones look like they could be zingers. I think you should pick up the phone and call Brian Gavin. Ask him to eyeball each one side to side & give you the skinny on them. Between the two of you (your preferences, his eye), your choice may become clearer.

Good luck & Congrats soon!

 

[NoonersMom]

Drk, F&I...thanks for the feedback. Drk I didn''t notice the girdle. For some reason I thought that one was thin, not very thin. I plan on having the center stone bezel set with a halo ala Ritani Endless Love. I will find out if it will still run the risk of chipping or if that won''t be an issue based on the setting. Thanks for pointing that out.

I will let you know what WF says. I plan on speaking with Brian before making a final selection.

 

[aljdewey]

I''d go with #3.....LOVE the size and the fluor. However, looks as though it''s been sold.

If so, you''d be smart to put the other two on hold so they don''t get bought from under you. Trust me on this....happened to me when I was shopping!

Between #1 and #2, I like #1.

 

[Regular Guy]

Definitely #1. Three''s not bad, but based on the option of the other 2, the girdle knocked it out. I had a tough time deciding between #1 & #2, preferring 1 a bit, but seeing it cost more. Until I saw #1 was also A Cut Above vs Expert Selection. As hard as I am on WF for justifying the premium, based on my also being a sucker also for the lower HCA score, and the excellent on scintillation, #1 wins it for me.

Also, I hope you''ve got them on hold, cause now I see all 3 show sold.

Best to you...and any of these would be lovely!

 

[NoonersMom]

Alj....First, thank you for pointing out that the website had it marked as sold. The stone isn''t sold, it''s being sent back to GIA to be recertified. According to Denise, they had the plot wrong on the certificate. It''s going to be 4-6 weeks before they will have it back. Can write that one off, it''ll be bad enough waiting 4-6 weeks for Leon to craft if I go that route (thinking of using WF). LOL.

They didn''t have any of the stones on hold for me. They do now!!! LOL. Additionally, Denise pointed out the stone listed below. My only question is regarding light leakage. There seems to be a lot of grey areas. I am wondering if this implies there is a bit of light leakage? If not, this looks like it could be the one if it passes WF''s eyes for the comparison. Love the size, color & clarity. It''s eye clean. For a $500 difference I can go from 1.12 to 1.265. Gotta love it! Let me know what you think. Thanks again!

Carat: 1.27
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 60.7
Table: 56
Crown Angle: 34.7
Crown %: 15.2
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 43
Girdle: Medium-Faceted
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: None
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 7.01-7.03X4.26
HCA: 1.3

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-1283070.htm#

 

[drk]

I love the IS image on this one. Tons of hot spots. Looks like a gorgeous stone to me.
Keep us posted on what you decide!

 

[fire&ice]

Looks like a really nice compromise of all specs if it is eye clean!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 4/18/2005 6:38:37 PM
Author: NoonersMom

Denise pointed out the stone listed below. My only question is regarding light leakage. There seems to be a lot of grey areas. I am wondering if this implies there is a bit of light leakage?

HOLY COW - Beautiful choice! DEFINITELY this one.

No, those aren''t areas of light leakage.....light leakage shows fairly white on the IS image. Those look to be areas of contrast, which will make your diamond sing.

Oh, NM, what a NICE, NICE choice. You''ll love the size...hee hee. The numbers on this stone couldn''t be any more spot-on.

Let us know how it turns out.

 

[NoonersMom]

Wow...thanks again for the feedback. I never knew how to read the IS aside from the arrow views and what I thought were white spots/leakage. Thanks for the clarification!!!

Another question.....which set of numbers would you follow more strictly...the sarin or the certificate? If I remember correcty I''ve seen a lot of people request the sarin. Are these considered more precise? I ask because when I plug the sarin numbers into the HCA, the 1.112ct comes up at 1.2 (previously 1.3) and the 1.265ct comes up at 1.6 (previously 1.3). Additionally, these are the specs from the sarin for the 1.265ct.....

Depth 61
Table 55.5
Pavillion Angle 40.9
Crown Angle 34.8
HCA 1.6

According to WF the 1.122 is the better performer...but I don''t know if the comparison includes the 1.26ct.

Thanks again....not trying to nickpick....just taking everything into consideration from afar! hehehe. Awww, the agony!!!!

Will keep you posted!

 

[Regular Guy]

Nooners Mom,

Though a little confused by the facts...I don''t see a loser anywhere in sight, no HCA score above 2, and only the promise of a significantly larger diamond on the horizon, for a modest cost increase, and with your beating its availability to the boards.

Regarding the two sets of numbers on the 1.27...not sure where the discrepancy comes in. Though generally, John will be the first to point you to the cert vs sarin where there''s a conflict, with this latter one being a GIA option, it should not come with crown & pavilion angles, leaving you to depend on WF for that sarin data. The numbers you''d entered in further above match with WF''s presentation on the link, so I''m not sure where the different data immediately above:

Depth 61
Table 55.5
Pavillion Angle 40.9
Crown Angle 34.8
HCA 1.6

is coming from.

You may want to clarify per WF which they think performs the best, given the current set under consideration. Particularly since the author of the HCA seems doctrinaire about being at least relatively blind to score differentials when the numbers are below 2, in any configuration of the ones mentioned above, I think you''re good to go.

Very best

 

[NoonersMom]

Ira, sorry for the confusion. WF didn''t represent the numbers wrong & I wasn''t implying that. I am sorry if that is how the communication read. There was a slight difference between the numbers posted on the page with the picture of the diamond & on the sarin attached to that page.

I am leaning towards the second one as it''s the perfect balance of the 5 c''s (cost/budget being the first one...lol) for me. As this is my first diamond purchase, I am just trying to look at the two contenders from every angle. I guess you could say I am being a little anal and overly cautious. Both stones are going to be shipped to an appraiser about an hour away & I will view them in person Friday & make a decision.

Thanks again for the feedback and patience...hope I am not annoying anyone with all of the questions.

 

[Mara]

OH MY GOD it's the one Denise found for you all the way!!!! those numbers are STELLAR and the price and sizing is phenomenal!

I am not interested in smaller diamonds when you can get a substantially larger one for $500 more that will perform just as well to the eye.

I also really like that H SI with med blue flour though the crown angle is not where I'd love it to be.

Oh and re: vs 1 or 2..I don't like #2 as I am not fond of that high crown angle...I'd go with #1 based on #'s and images..but again for me the winner is the one Denise found. good job D!

 

[fire&ice]

Could you clarify which stones are which. I''m not sure if number two is the one Denise recommended or which stone is $500 more of which stone.

 

[NoonersMom]

LOL F&I....I will clarify (sorry for the confusion)...

Option #1 is the 1.122 ct and is posted as Option #1 in the previous thread.
Option #2 was option #2 in the previous thread & is no longer a contender
Option #3 was the one listed as option #3 in the previous post. This is not available as WF is sending it back to GIA to be re-plotted.

Option #4 (which wasn''t previously given an official number) is the one that Denise found & pointed out. It wasn''t pulling to the board. This is the one that is $500 more and is considerably larger (1.265 ct). Mara, couldn''t agree with you more re Denise. She rocks! (Pun intended).

Now it''s down to 1 & 4. I am heavily leaning towards 4. However, I know myself & will need to see both otherwise I will always wonder if I made the right decision (I know, silly, but it''s me...lol).

Who said picking out a diamond was easy? lol.

 

[fire&ice]

Gotcha.

I''d still vote #4 then. It''s bigger. But, it''s a good idea to see both! I''d be interested in your final pick.

Good luck

 

[drk]

As far as I can tell from the prices listed on Whiteflash, the price difference between your two contenders is only $151. I''d be going for the bigger stone for that amount of money - it looks gorgeous! I''ll be interested to hear if it looks better in person like I think it should based on the IS image...
Can''t wait to hear what your verdict is on Friday!

 

[NoonersMom]

I had the appointment with the appraiser today. As promised, I am reporting back.

Both diamonds were absolutely beautiful! When it came down to it, there was a performance difference between the two, however *very, very* slight. I could barely tell as the office had the typical flouro lighting. That being said, the 1.122 performed a touch better. The appraiser stated that once they were set, I wouldn''t be able to see the difference. Based on that and the noticable size difference, I went with the 1.265.

(I can''t believe how large it is. Wonder when shrinkage will set in...lol).

Drk....you were correct, I looked at the WF listed price, not the PS price. As it turns out, the final price on the 1.265 was $400 less than the 1.122. I''ll take that!

Thanks again for all of your opinions, especially Alj, Regular Guy, Drk, F&I and Mara. Hats off to Denise for pointing the 1.265 out and benig patient with all of my questions. Now if I can just get the setting worked out, life will be fantastic! LOL.

 

[drk]

Congrats on finding your diamond! Now we''ll eagerly await pics of the finished ring...

 

[NoonersMom]

It will be a while. I am involved in the process until the wax mold is approved. Once it''s approved, SO takes it from there. The next time I see the stone is when he proposes.