Opinions on these three stones & images, please!

[cerulean14]

Hi everyone,

I believe I''ve narrowed my search down to the three stones outlined below. I would love any thoughts on which you may prefer and why, and anything that may pop out as being notable. I only have images for the first two stones, unfortunately - but the third seems like a great price for the virtual specs, so I haven''t ruled it out; but I would need to purchase it first to evaluate it beyond the info below. While it would save me a good chunk of change, that''s only part of the equation - if there is a clear reason to go with one of the other two, I would do so in a heartbeat as they''re all within my budget - though Option B maxes it out. Thank you!

-cerulean14

 

[cerulean14]

Option A ideal scope:

 

[cerulean14]

Option B idealscope:

 

[cerulean14]

Option A image:

 

[cerulean14]

Option B image:

 

[cerulean14]

If I manage to obtain any images of Option C, I will of course post them here.

Thank you for your thoughts and opinions!

 

[starryeyed]

Hi Cerulean14! Wow, looks like you''ve really done your homework! The culets - I would assume they are 0/None? I didn''t see a white dot in the idealscope, so I''m guessing 0.

I can see why this is a tough choice - they both look nice and you can''t go wrong with either one. Seems like a color-size decision. Are you color sensitive?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I''d take the H. I think you''ll be glad in the long run.

 

[kcoursolle]

I''d take either A or B, but not C. I guess either A/B comes down to color/price, either way both look fantastic.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/29/2006 12:46:24 AM
Author: kcoursolle
I''d take either A or B, but not C. I guess either A/B comes down to color/price, either way both look fantastic.

Ditto Koursie, my choice would be the H.

 

[cerulean14]

Thanks for your comments thus far. Both are Whiteflash diamonds, as is probably obvious from the pics. The $300 price difference is not an issue for me. But here''s the dilemma:

- Option A is considered an ACA H&A, and is a definitive AGS 0. However, it is an I, not an H as is Option B.
- Option B, on the other hand, is not an ACA H&A, it is "only" an Expert Selection (next cut level down), and it is not AGS 0 - likely just missed it, I''m told. However, it is a color rung better - an H, rather than an I.

All things equal, I would go with the H color, of course. But since Option A is an ACA H&A and AGS 0, while Option B is still really great but just missed the cut, apparently, this makes me wonder whether there is a truly perceptable overall performance difference.

Is there anything in the specs I listed above, or the ideal scope or magnified images, that would make one definitively select Option A over Option B based on the cut/performance specs (not H vs. I color)? For example, would the wider range of crown and pavilion <''s in Option B indicate *notably* "less consistency" in sparkle/brilliance? If so, I would lean towards Option A. If not, I would lean towards Option B, due to the H color. Also, in the idealscope images above, Option B looks like it has darker red overall - usually a good thing. But in this case, it may just be differences in the brightness/saturation of the photos themselves - I''m just not sure. Any thoughts?

I''m hoping to make a decision today - so if anyone has any thoughts, I would really appreciate hearing them. Thank you! -cerulean14

 

[belle]

what kind of setting will it go in?
i am leaning toward the ''h''

 

[Kaleigh]

I vote for the H as well.

 

[starryeyed]

I see the cut thing as splitting hairs. The ACA designation is determined by a range of proportions - if one number is off by a tenth of a percentage, it''s not ACA. So is an ACA stone really more beautiful? If you look at the HCA scores as a guide, the H seems to perform slightly better than the ACA!

What that says to me is that there are other parameters that you can use to determine if the stone is what you want. ACA is a great guide, but it seems like a branding thing too. It allows WF to differentiate certain diamonds and charge a premium for them. Do they necessarily perform better? You are probably guaranteed a certain baseline performance, but for someone like you who does your homework and really tries to understand the cut, I''m not sure you need the branding.

So that said, Is the ACA brand worth taking a hit in color? That''s a matter of preference, but for me, I''d take the H, hands-down.

 

[cerulean14]

Belle et al. - it is intended to go in a GelinAbaci tension setting, likely 14K or 18K white gold, model number TR-040:

 

[starryeyed]

You''ll see the pavilion, so definitely the H!

 

[belle]

definitely the h!

it''s going to be stunning!

 

[Ellen]

Yes, in that setting, no question. H!

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 11/29/2006 1:10:10 PM
Author: Ellen
Yes, in that setting, no question. H!

Ditto! Since color shows more in the side...and you can see the whole side, I would go with the H. It will be safer.

 

[cerulean14]

Thanks, everyone! Seems the consensus is the H, due to the color grade, so I''m heading in that direction. However...

...I just ran into an issue - perhaps more in the mind than in reality (I hope!). I rang up a local jeweler who I know sells GelinAbaci tension set rings, to find out the process and timing for getting them the stone and having it sent off to GelinAbaci to be set. I tell him what I''m purchasing, and he proceeds to tell me he thinks I''m potentially making a mistake by going with an H VS1, and that he would rather see me with a G VS2, essentially going up in color and down in clarity, since a VS2 will be eyeclean anyway. He says, "The first diamond I ever bought for someone was an I, and I''ve always regretted not getting a much better stone in terms of color." He proceeds to tell me about all sorts of G VS2 options he has, etc., none of which match the cut/performance quality of the H I''ve been evaluating above. Plus, I''d never be able to get things like idealscope images, etc., for the stones he''s talking about.

So am I really making a "mistake" going with an H, rather than a G, particularly with the tension setting I''m considering above (in 14K white gold)? It would be one thing if it was platinum, but with white gold I would assume it would "matter" less. I''ve been assuming that the dominant characteristic of the type of stone I''m focusing on is going to be the quality of the cut, and associated sparkle, brilliance, etc., and that there really wouldn''t be *that* much difference in color for stones I''m considering in the GHI range. I wasn''t worried before - and maybe still shouldn''t be worried - but his comments kind of scared me.

So... should I be concerned about his comments? Or do you think this is really just a case of a jeweler trying to use scare tactics to get me to buy a diamond from him? I would certainly consider a G VS2, but after perusing several online sources, to get one with similar specs/performance and size as above, it looks like I''d need to shell out quite a bit more $$ - like in the $8500 range or higher, which is quite a bit higher than what I had wanted to pay ($7500). Argh!

-cerulean14

 

[starryeyed]

Hi Cerulean14. And just when we thought the whole thing was settled....I guess this answers your question about the I though, so progress!

You really see color in a diamond''s pavilion when you do the face-down in a white tray test. So I guess I wonder if the color in the pavilion will be obvious in this setting? The diamond is close to your skin, rather than white paper, so maybe the effects aren''t as great.

I know what you mean about jeweler scare-tactics. They can be ruthless. Perhaps the thing to do is buy the H and let the jeweler source a G VS2 for you. You can then compare the stones and return the H if you see a noticeable difference.

 

[kcoursolle]

Lets make sure your jeweler is comparing apples to apples. The H/VS1 you are purchasing is really well cut and won''t show a hint of color face up. A less well-cut stone would show more. I really doubt it will be a problem from the side even, but the G/VS2 idea would certainly be do-able. I wouldn''t go down to an SI in a tension setting since there is a substantial amount of pressure on the diamond.

 

[starryeyed]

Hi Cerulean. Just in case you want to pursue the G, here are a few options from James Allen:

1.15 G VS1 ID/ID 1.5 HCA $7570

1.18 G VS1 EX/EX 0.9 HCA $8180

I'm not sure if the thin girdle on the 2nd one would be an issue with the tension setting, but the diamond is a similar width to your H:

H: 6.88 x 6.91 mm
G: 6.84 x 6.89 mm

I found these using "Search by Cut". Oddly, the VS2's from other vendors were more money....

 

[cerulean14]

Wow, thank you starryeyed! You may have just found my perfect diamond! I wasn''t even focusing on G VS1 options when searching for G''s, just G VS2, so I would have missed these - as you point out below.

I''m leaning towards the 1.15 option (which, at 1.158, we''ll just call 1.16

) and have been in touch with James Allen about it. It''s now on hold for me. The girdle size will be okay, I think - the min reflected on the AGS cert is 1.0%, so it should fit within acceptable guidelines for tension settings, from what I''ve been told. At only .04 carats difference compared to the 1.20 H VS1 I was originally evaulating above, and at essentially the same price, it would seem like a no-brainer to go with the G. Plus, it''s a definitive AGS 0, which definitely nice to have! I''ve requested an idealscope image from James Allen (should have it today or tomorrow), and if the quality of the image is in line with the quality of the specs I can already see, I think we may have a winner - and hopefully in time for Christmas!

I''ll post the idealscope image when I receive it, along with any other additional info. Thanks once again!

-cerulean14

Date: 11/29/2006 9:57:34 PM
Author: starryeyed
Hi Cerulean. Just in case you want to pursue the G, here are a few options from James Allen:

1.15 G VS1 ID/ID 1.5 HCA $7570

1.18 G VS1 EX/EX 0.9 HCA $8180

I''m not sure if the thin girdle on the 2nd one would be an issue with the tension setting, but the diamond is a similar width to your H:

H: 6.88 x 6.91 mm
G: 6.84 x 6.89 mm

I found these using ''Search by Cut''. Oddly, the VS2''s from other vendors were more money....

 

[starryeyed]

Cerulean, I am so glad I could help!

Please keep us posted - I''m anxious to see the final product!

 

[cerulean14]

Big thanks to JamesAllen.com for getting the idealscope image of the 1.15 G VS1 option identified by starryeyed above to me so quickly. The idealscope image is below - I would love to know if anyone has any comments on it - i.e., any reason NOT to think this diamond won''t be excellent in terms of cut and performance.

Note that I''m comparing this against the 1.20 H VS1 from whiteflash, pictured at the start of this e-mail, as the one I was leaning towards previously. For the same price, I''m going up from H to G, and sacrificing .04 carats (not a big deal to me). Unless there is a reason to think this diamond will perform badly compared to the original H, it would seem to me that this G VS1 is the one to go with. Thoughts?

The relevant specs from the AGS cert are:

1.158 carat G VS1 round brilliant
AGS 0 / 000 certified
ID cut
ID symmetry
ID polish
No flourescence
Depth 61.8%
Table 56.0%
Crown Angle 35.2
Pavilion Angle 40.7
Culet: Pointed
HCA: 1.5 EX EX EX VG
Girdle: Thin to Medium, 1.0% to 3.6%
6.69 x 6.74 x 4.16

Idealscope:

 

[starryeyed]

Hi again Cerulean! The only questions in my mind are with respect to the range in proportions. I am not an expert, and would honestly like to know the answers myself.

The girdle range on the H is much tighter: 1.2%-1.7% vs 1.0%-3.6% on the G. Is this a problem?

I also wonder about the crown and pavilion angle ranges - you had them from the Sarin report on the H, but the info on the G isn''t as detailed. Maybe this is useful info?

 

[cerulean14]

Thanks, starryeyed - In terms of girdle, I believe the info from the sarin report and the AGS cert measure different aspects of the girdle, so it''s not apples to apples. On the 1.2 H VS1 originally evaluated, the AGS cert actually lists the girdle range as 1.2% to 3.7% - nearly identical to the 1.0% to 3.6% of the 1.15 G VS1 now under consideration. So, comparing apples to apples, they are about the same. The measurements I listed in my original post for the H VS1 were from the sarin report, not the AGS cert. I believe the sarin report may measure the range of values at the thinnest points - the valleys - in the girdle, which is why the numbers are low and more consistent. AGS may measure the lowest point of a valley as it''s lower point, and then the thickest part of the girdle at it''s hihg point. From the girdle section in the tutorial here on pricescope:

"In USA girdle thickness of rounded diamonds were always measured at the thinnest part or ''valley''. In Europe the girdle is measured at the main or bezel facet junction, which is normally 1.6 or 1.7% thicker than the valley. The new AGS system now measures girdle thickness at the thick part."

So I think we''re fine in terms of girdle.

I do not have the crown and pavillion angle ranges for the G VS1 as I did for the H VS1, since a sarin report is not available. However, I would assume that, since it is an AGS 000, and the HCA score is a good one, the crown and pavilion angle ranges can''t be *that* bad - otherwise this would lead to a lack of symmetry in the facets, a poorer cut, a less than ideal HCA, and perhaps a noticeable/visible lack of symmetry in the idealscope - which looks excellent to me in the idealscope.

Am I thinking about these things correctly? Any additional comments from anyone? Thank you!

 

[starryeyed]

Glad you were able to pinpoint the apples-to-apples comparison on the girdle Cerulean! I even learned something, so thanks!

I definitely see differences in the idealscope images between the G and the H. I''m not sure if that''s because of the angle of the stone in the photo, or if there are differences in the cut quality. I know these images are very sensitive to the diamond being level. I don''t know the technical terms for the different areas of the stone, but I''ll try my best to describe the differences:

1. Arrow bases, near the center of the table - widths vary on the G. More uniform on the H.
2. Black triangles just outside the arrow bases: visible at 3, 5, 7, and 8 o''clock, but not elsewhere on the G. Visible at regular intervals on the H.
3. Black triangles between arrow heads not uniform on the G. Uniform on the H.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[cerulean14]

All excellent points on the idealscope, starryeyed - I do not for sure whether these are issues with the diamond, or simply due to differences between the quality/angle/color contrast of the respective photos (the H vs. the G). For what it''s worth, Whiteflash (the H photo) always seems to have perfect idealscope images in terms of angle, focus, vividness of color, etc. Their image quality and setup is superb.

If anyone out there with more expert opinion on idealscopes would care to comment, I would greatly appreciate it. What it comes down to is: *if* there is a difference in cut quality, is the cut quality difference "big enough" to go with the slightly larger H, or are we splitting hairs over cut quality, and the G is the way to go, since it''s a notch up in color for the same price as the H?