Opinions on these 2 stones

[lucky201]

Hi All,

So I am looking at these two stones and wanted to get some advice from the group. Here are the details:

Stone 1:
AGS Graded
1 carat
Round Brilliant
6.33x6.39x3.91
I color
SI1 clarity -
Cut – Very Good
Polish – Ideal
Symmetry – Ideal
60.8% Table
61.7% Depth
34.4 degree Crown
40.8 degree Pavillion
Flourescence: Negligible
Girdle: Thin to Thick
HCA: 2.4
Price: $4,000

Stone 2:
GIA Graded
0.92 carat
Round Brilliant
6.19x6.22x3.82
I color
VS2 clarity - Report does mention in comments: Surface Graining is not shown
Cut – Very Good
Polish – Very Good
Symmetry – Very Good
58% Table
61.6% Depth
35.5 degree Crown
40.4 degree Pavillion
Flourescence: Strong Blue
Girdle: Thin to Thick
HCA: .9
Price: $3,000

I have not seen either stone. I have a couple of questions. Stone 2 seems better cut, yet is a step down in polish and symmetry, not to open a can of worms, but is a better cut more important than polish and symmetry? Also, since the color of the two stones is the same and stone 2 is a step up in clarity, the only difference besides a better cut is the size and of course grading agency. So, does .08cts really amount to a $1,000 difference in price despite the better cut/clarity? Or should I be wary of stone 2? Lastly, will I be able to tell the size difference between the sizes or will a better cut stone make that negligible? Thanks for the help!

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 12/4/2008 3:30:46 PM
Author:lucky201

I have not seen either stone. I have a couple of questions. Stone 2 seems better cut, yet is a step down in polish and symmetry, not to open a can of worms, but is a better cut more important than polish and symmetry? Also, since the color of the two stones is the same and stone 2 is a step up in clarity, the only difference besides a better cut is the size and of course grading agency. So, does .08cts really amount to a $1,000 difference in price despite the better cut/clarity? Or should I be wary of stone 2? Lastly, will I be able to tell the size difference between the sizes or will a better cut stone make that negligible? Thanks for the help!

The weight of the stone is a major factor because the 1c threshold is pass, that will result in a major jump in price for a diamond and why usually those stones just over the 1c mark is poorly cut and a very small number of stones in the 0.9-1.0 c range. Also factor in the slight drop in price due to the presence of SB fluor and the VG in polish and symm more than make up for the increase in price of a better clarity stone.

Unless there are IS available for comparison, I would prefer the GIA stone, better bang for buck, better cut. I would not be too worried about the VG in symm and polish.

 

[lucky201]

Date: 12/4/2008 4:10:09 PM
Author: Stone-cold11


The weight of the stone is a major factor because the 1c threshold is pass, that will result in a major jump in price for a diamond and why usually those stones just over the 1c mark is poorly cut and a very small number of stones in the 0.9-1.0 c range. Also factor in the slight drop in price due to the presence of SB fluor and the VG in polish and symm more than make up for the increase in price of a better clarity stone.

Am I right that this strong blue fluor will make the I-color appear more white?

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 12/4/2008 4:13:50 PM
Author: lucky201

Date: 12/4/2008 4:10:09 PM

Author: Stone-cold11



The weight of the stone is a major factor because the 1c threshold is pass, that will result in a major jump in price for a diamond and why usually those stones just over the 1c mark is poorly cut and a very small number of stones in the 0.9-1.0 c range. Also factor in the slight drop in price due to the presence of SB fluor and the VG in polish and symm more than make up for the increase in price of a better clarity stone.

Am I right that this strong blue fluor will make the I-color appear more white?

Theoretically, but it won''t make it look like a D or anything.

 

[stone-cold11]

That would only be the case in the presence of UV light source.

Forgot to add that for strong to very-strong fluor, you will need to ask the vendor to check that the stone does not appear oily or hazy in sunlight, there is a slight chance of that happening, I have a VSB stone and it just becomes slightly blue in sunlight.

 

[lucky201]

Date: 12/4/2008 4:16:19 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 12/4/2008 4:13:50 PM
Author: lucky201



Am I right that this strong blue fluor will make the I-color appear more white?

Theoretically, but it won''t make it look like a D or anything.

Understood, just wanted to make sure that it would be a huge distraction or anything or take away from the diamond overall. Fluor has been a harder thing for me to grasp as to just how it affects the diamond''s appearance/value. Thanks!

 

[Ellen]

lucky, is that the correct table on the first one?

 

[lucky201]

Date: 12/4/2008 8:49:30 PM
Author: Ellen
lucky, is that the correct table on the first one?

Hi Ellen,

It is the correct table. I know it is a bit large, to say the least. However due to the other positive qualities about the stone, I was still interested in it. How much of an issue is a table that large?

 

[John P]

Both diamonds are facing up small for their weight. Not surprising since their girdles both range to thick.

I'd want to know if the 40.4 pavilion on #2 creates any darkness due to obstruction, although the paired crown angle probably mitigates that. What's the lower half length?

(pause for a PSA)

For the record a 60% table is not actually 'large.'

I know we're a clan of enthusiasts who love us some near-Tolkowsky, but in GIA terms a 'small' table is 53-59%, 'medium' is 60-64% and 'large' is 65%+ ...The majority of stones in common markets have med-large tables as a by-product of rough planning with weight-retention as a priority.

With that said, the greatest number of possibilities for the top grade in GIA and AGS metrics is concentrated at table sizes 55-57.

(resume normal programming)

 

[lucky201]

Date: 12/4/2008 11:51:14 PM
Author: John Pollard
Both diamonds are facing up small for their weight. Not surprising since their girdles both range to thick.


I''d want to know if the 40.4 pavilion on #2 creates any darkness due to obstruction, although the paired crown angle probably mitigates that. What''s the lower half length?


(pause for a PSA)


For the record a 60% table is not actually ''large.''

I know we''re a clan of enthusiasts who love us some near-Tolkowsky, but in GIA terms a ''small'' table is 53-59%, ''medium'' is 60-64% and ''large'' is 65%+ ...The majority of stones in common markets have med-large tables as a by-product of rough planning with weight-retention as a priority.


With that said, the greatest number of possibilities for the top grade in GIA and AGS metrics is concentrated at table sizes 55-57.


(resume normal programming)

I see that I still have a lot to learn. Unfortunately, the only report I have is the one I can look up through the GIA site so I can''t see lower half length. What I can see is that the lower half is "80%" according to the report. Not sure if that helps, but I thought I would post it. Thanks for all the insight John.

 

[John P]

Date: 12/5/2008 12:01:43 AM
Author: lucky201

Date: 12/4/2008 11:51:14 PM
Author: John Pollard
Both diamonds are facing up small for their weight. Not surprising since their girdles both range to thick.


I''d want to know if the 40.4 pavilion on #2 creates any darkness due to obstruction, although the paired crown angle probably mitigates that. What''s the lower half length?

I see that I still have a lot to learn. Unfortunately, the only report I have is the one I can look up through the GIA site so I can''t see lower half length. What I can see is that the lower half is ''80%'' according to the report. Not sure if that helps, but I thought I would post it. Thanks for all the insight John.

You''re quite welcome. Yes, that does help. 80% is suitable for that stone''s configuration. I''d still want to know about the highlighted.

 

[lucky201]

Thanks for the tip John. Do you have any concerns about the first stone? Or is the 2nd stone that much better in cut that I should not consider the first stone?

 

[Lorelei]

Hi Lucky,

Can you get Idealscopes for these? That would help.

 

[lucky201]

Hi All,

Thanks so much for the help. I ended up going with stone 2 even though it was a bit less than a carat which was what I was shooting for originally. I worked with Mark at ERD and could not have been happier. He was a tremendous help. The stone looks great and really sparkles, especially in the sun. I can''t wait to get the ring next week. I''ll post pictures once I have them. Thanks to all for the advice I have received throughout the process. I''m sure my girlfriend will be thrilled as well, once she actually sees it when I pop the question.

 

[stone-cold11]

Good Luck.