Pics! Can you tell the difference between EX steep deep HCA 5.4 and EX HCA 1?

[rogue]

Moment of truth! At least truth confined to my camera abilities. As promised, pics of two stones. Both are excellent cuts per GIA, but one is a steep deep with CA 34.5 and PA 41.6 that received a HCA score of 5.4, the other received a HCA score of 1 and is has CA 34.0 and PA 40.6.

 

[rogue]

Other pic.

 

[rogue]

Both together, with flash.

 

[ladykemma]

the first one is the steep deep?

 

[Mara]

Date: 7/18/2006 10:52:55 AM
Author: ladykemma
the first one is the steep deep?

thats what i thought too because of the black area under the table and also the 2nd stone has a larger table than the first in those pictures, but in terms of performance, these pictures don't really tell us too much...well except in the flash picture you can tell that the diamonds are both really dirty. hehee. the 2nd diamond looks much brighter though over all which is what i'd expect.

i'd be really curious to see idealscopes on these stones...but i know you don't have one. also i like the visual symmetry better in the 2nd stone in the first 2 pictures you posted, the first one looks like it has super short arrows or something odd.

i would guess though that #2 won't work for you because of the big black booger right smack dab in the middle of the table. if you returned a 2c+ that had something like that, you wouldn't want to keep a 1.8 that had one. hehee.

 

[rogue]

You guys are right - first stone is the steep deep. My eye is starting to be able to discern the ring of death in a number of different settings, and I think the second stone is in fact slightly more sparkly. Both of these stones are not actually eye clean to me, but I am excellent at spotting inclusions, granted from 3 inches away from my face. The first stone has a cloud off center under the table which is harder to see than the crystal "booger" (I really hate how that''s how I''ll think of it now) in the second stone. That being said, they are both minor and not that noticeable to the naked eye. I have still yet to see an SI1 where I could not see the inclusion with my eye, so I think I can deal with these rather than pay more (and go smaller!) for VS2. Mara, the 2.2 I returned was an SI2 and was awful -- visible feathers all over the place.

Given the fact that the ring of death stone is a 1.83 G SI1, the HCA 1 stone is a 1.7 E SI1, and the difference is price is about $550, does everyone think that the 1.7 is the choice?

 

[Sundial]

Yes if you are okay with the inclusion.

 

[Mara]

are these really your only two options?

 

[rogue]

I think so. Tired of looking. And when it comes down to it, both are beautiful to me.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I''ll be honest and say that I wouldn''t consider the first one and the second one is better but there''s no way I could handle the black inclusion right in the center of the table. There are SI1''s with better placed inclusions, and I''d look until I found one or else up the budget and get VS2.

 

[Mara]

well it''s up to you but if i had to choose between those two, i''d take the 2nd one but in reality i am not a 60/60 fan, so you have to LOVE that cut style. it''s not the same as a superideal kinda look.

and it IS possible to find a super duper eye-clean SI stone. this is my 2.32 SI1 and before that i had a 1.60 SI2 that had one super super tiny black inclusion (about 1/4 the size of yours) off to the right of the table only visible in certain lighting situations. i loved it.

pickins ARE slim and if you are just tired of looking, it''s your call. just make sure you''d really be happy with whatever you end up with. doubts for me are the worst because later they just get worse and i kick myself. a lot of PS''ers are totally obsessive but some aren''t as bad. hehe.

 

[Beacon]

Agree, the one with the center inclusion is not a great option IMO. I have really good eyes and have seen some eye clean SI1''s. That is "eye clean" from the top. I have yet to see one where it was 100% eye clean from all the angles, including side, face down, etc. However, there have been plenty where the problem was quite minor and not so much that it made a difference.

I would not take that one with the black crystal in the center. I know your photo is magnifying the problem, but it looks pretty serious.

Consider, if you went to resell this one, it might be hard.

 

[Demelza]

I guess if I had to choose between these two, I''d chose #2. But, honestly, that black inclusion right under the table would really bug me. You say that neither of these is eyeclean to you -- is that really going to be okay with you in the long run, looking at this stone day after day? I know that you''re tired of looking and if either of these would genuinely make you happy, then that''s great and you should go for whichever one you like best. But with your very generous budget, I have no doubt you could get a gorgeous eyeclean, white, superideal cut that would almost surely outperform either of these. I don''t mean to be discouraging and perhaps you''re not as obsessive as some of us here on PS (that''s a good thing, believe me!), but I wouldn''t settle simply because of frustration or fatigue. Good luck!

 

[Regular Guy]

1) I''m joining the crowd
2) Are you prepared to have that endearing term now attached to your selection
3) Truth in comments...I selected from the "virtual list" as you''ve tried, and believe I got lucky.
4) There''s virtue in those lexus commercials, talking about the virtue of a pre-owned...that had been scoped for you
5) Though you''re tired, based on the searching you''ve already done, that 1.63 you spotted at WF still seems to be there, ostensibly pre-owned (and reviewed already by them, and still reviewable for you)
6) Read in the FAQs WF''s definition of eye clean, and -- only if you do want to pursue that one -- call them and ask how it applies.

Just a thought

 

[JohnQuixote]

Hey Ira, pardon for asking, but why would you think the 1.63 was pre-owned?

 

[Regular Guy]

John,

Sorry, the analogy is imperfect, and yet, somehow has the right gestalt to me.

From Rogue''s other thread(s), I note that these alternatives are both essentially virtual stones...that''s all they have from Diamond Source, and most of what they have at Blue Nile, and so, both of these diamonds were NOT pre-owned by the respective vendor who is now selling it. In the alternative, the 1.63 at WF is NOW owned (therefore, pre-owned) by WF. In no case were any of these diamonds "used," vis-a-vis the automobile industry, so the analogy is imperfect. Still, if you''ve heard the commercials, maybe you''d be sympathetic to the attribution. Then again, maybe I should never use it again.

Also Rogue, continuing from above...

7) Consensus, including your own sympathies, is leaning at least toward the BN option (by the way, I was going to attribute the affectionate term not to Mara, but to Richard Sherwood, who recently used it, but if you will search on that delightful turn of phraseology, you''ll see an extensive documenting of its use here on Pricescope), and away from the Diamond Source one, who probably set your timetable at 2 days, and your mental clock. If you decide to drop the weak link, you''re back to having 28 days ticking, and more time you can give to this...

Unless, of course, you have other deeds pending the purchase, time''s a wasting, and you need to get this purchase deed done. In which case, of course, god bless, and your friend will certainly love whichever you "pick."

Best of wishes,

 

[rogue]

Really not appreciating the booger analogies. Yes, for now, I will return the steep deep to Diamond Source, who gave me until tomorrow to inspect. I will ask them if they can find other stones for me since I do very much appreciate their service, and if one happens to work, angles and all, we can order it in for inspection, all within the Blue Nile timetable. I will also keep tabs on Whiteflash, GoodOldGold and Superbcert to see if they get anything else (as for the 1.63, I really don''t want to drop beneath 7.7 mm - lines have to be drawn somewhere). In the meantime, I''m going to see if I can get used to the little spot, and it really is just a little spot in a beautiful diamond when it''s not magnified 40 times. Thanks for all your thoughts. If you get any more, post em my way.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/18/2006 12:29:59 PM
Author: rogue
You guys are right - first stone is the steep deep. My eye is starting to be able to discern the ring of death in a number of different settings, and I think the second stone is in fact slightly more sparkly. Both of these stones are not actually eye clean to me, but I am excellent at spotting inclusions, granted from 3 inches away from my face. The first stone has a cloud off center under the table which is harder to see than the crystal ''booger'' (I really hate how that''s how I''ll think of it now) in the second stone. That being said, they are both minor and not that noticeable to the naked eye. I have still yet to see an SI1 where I could not see the inclusion with my eye, so I think I can deal with these rather than pay more (and go smaller!) for VS2. Mara, the 2.2 I returned was an SI2 and was awful -- visible feathers all over the place.

Given the fact that the ring of death stone is a 1.83 G SI1, the HCA 1 stone is a 1.7 E SI1, and the difference is price is about $550, does everyone think that the 1.7 is the choice?

Rogue you will find the steep deep dies when dirty compared to the nice stone - where you can see thru - you will see the dirt. This would be worse than the inclusion that you will only see for a small number of years as your close up eye sight will not be with you forever

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/18/2006 7:22:26 PM
Author: rogue
Really not appreciating the booger analogies. Yes, for now, I will return the steep deep to Diamond Source, who gave me until tomorrow to inspect. I will ask them if they can find other stones for me since I do very much appreciate their service, and if one happens to work, angles and all, we can order it in for inspection, all within the Blue Nile timetable. I will also keep tabs on Whiteflash, GoodOldGold and Superbcert to see if they get anything else (as for the 1.63, I really don''t want to drop beneath 7.7 mm - lines have to be drawn somewhere). In the meantime, I''m going to see if I can get used to the little spot, and it really is just a little spot in a beautiful diamond when it''s not magnified 40 times. Thanks for all your thoughts. If you get any more, post em my way.

Dont'' call them boogers then, call them beauty marks. That''s what I call them... but I''d rather have one on my butt than in the middle of my nose. JMO lol Even still, one in *just* the right spot can be beautiful to you if you let it. Look at Cindy Crawford and Marilyn Monroe

 

[rogue]

Date: 7/19/2006 2:55:35 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Rogue you will find the steep deep dies when dirty compared to the nice stone - where you can see thru - you will see the dirt. This would be worse than the inclusion that you will only see for a small number of years as your close up eye sight will not be with you forever

Garry you are so right. After spending way too long staring through a loop the past few days, I''m left with a headache that won''t go away and vision that is worse by at least 50 points...the stone is becoming more and more eye clean to me! Haha, be careful what you wish for! So I went to see a dealer in the diamond district today in his offices (who is actually one of the suppliers of Whiteflash!). He was a very straightforward, honest, non-slick and greasy guy. We put the 1.7 E SI1 next to some other GIA excellent stones and it just blew them away in performance. I''m starting to realize that having this stone as my BATNA really puts me in a good position when I look at other stones. I have an appointment with Barry at Superbcert tomorrow to look at one of his Super Ideals. It''s a 1.69 G SI1 with a fairly decent spread (longest diameter is 7.75). Comparing this stone to Barry''s will definitely help further my decision. And if that stone works out better, mmm, lifetime upgrade policy...

 

[rogue]

You guys might all think I'm crazy, but I have to report back anyway. I just met with Barry at SuperbCert. Very professional, the meeting went very well. I examined a 1.69 G SI1 SuperbCert diamond. It was lovely. It was eye clean. The inclusions even with a loop were minor. The symmetry was fantastic - the arrows and hearts were fantastically crisp when viewed with a H&A viewer, much crisper than Blue Nile. The ideal scope image was very pink and red. Here's the thing: I think I like my Blue Nile stone better! Yes, the one with the visible inclusion (I named it Spot)!

My stone just plain performed better to me. It was brighter, whiter, and had just better light performance to my eye. The ideal scope image was incredibly pink and red, more so than the SC. I'm not sure if it looked "better" and brighter to me because 1) it in fact is cut better with regard to light performance, 2) it is an E compared to a G, 3) it is shallower compared to the more traditional "ideal" cut, but in any case it just sparkled more (I think Barry might have agreed with me based on his reactions, but I can't be sure). It also looked bigger, which is always a plus (7.75-7.79 mm versus 7.66-7.75)

So, the potential crazy label: is it crazy to keep the E with Spot when the SC is almost as good with regard to light performance, almost as white, but totally eye clean?

 

[Regular Guy]

Here boy spot, here.

Good boy.

Now you would have your own special relationship with your fiance''s ring.

You can keep that special relationship between you and your wife''s ring...she needn''t even know about it.

Sounds lovely.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/19/2006 9:22:00 PM
Author: rogue

...So I went to see a dealer in the diamond district today in his offices (who is actually one of the suppliers of Whiteflash!). He was a very straightforward, honest, non-slick and greasy guy. We put the 1.7 E SI1 next to some other GIA excellent stones and it just blew them away in performance...

Pleased to hear you met one of our virtual diamond suppliers, Rogue. Especially glad that he’s staying non-greasy!

 

[Beacon]

Hey, this is what it is all about! You''ve done your homework, made your comparisons and consulted experts. In the end it is your personal choice. You like that stone, so that is the best one for you.

Diamonds are always about trade offs unless you have an unlimited budget. Now you have developed your personal trade off matrix with more information and confidence.

Considering how magnified the photos are, I bet it is very hard to see "spot" in regular light conditions. Enjoy.

 

[Beacon]

Quick question: were you really able to see a size diff between the 7.75-7.79 and the 7.66-7.75? That sounds so close.

I always wonder how many tenths of mm''s make a visual difference.

 

[rogue]

Totally. When I mentioned the size difference, Barry said, "Did you just say that you could see a size difference between a 1.69 and a 1.70?" Then he looked at both of them and said, "Oh, yes, yes there is." And he added with a smile, "I didn''t notice that earlier because I was mesmerized by that inclusion." That last part was said in all good fun though.

I am extremely type A. So, I am pretty darn happy with this stone, but, it looks like I''m going to see one more stone from Denny at Diamond Source of Virginia. It''s a 1.74 G VS2 with a spread of 7.83-7.89, HCA score 2.1. I think there is little chance the light performance can be as good, but maybe it will be comparable enough, plus hopefully eye clean (and it''s bigger). The main inclusion is a feather, which concerns me a little (without the feather, the only other inclusions plotted are pinpoints, so the feather is clarity-determining. Hmm.). Anyway, gonna take a look and then put this to rest! I''ll post pics, of course, for all those interested.

 

[Beacon]

Well, this new G/VS2 could really look good. Won''t it cost quite more?

I am curious about the specs of the "spot" stone. Do you know the crown height as compared to the one you saw at the other vendor''s store?

I ask cause sometimes I wonder if a stone has a lower crown height, so it is "flatter" it can look bigger from face up even at a slight mm difference from a stone w/ higher crown height. Anyone see anything like this?

 

[Mara]

it really is all about preference...i personally am not interested in a a whiter or brighter looking stone...having HAD that previously...i want the blend of fire mixed with brighter and those fascinating shards of glass sparkles that i tend to see in ideal cut stones....i like the 'perfect mix' of fire and scint and bright rather than just brighter. my old stone was very white and bright but it just bugged me over time because i felt like it only had one or two 'faces' to show me in different lighting situations. i felt like it was just lacking in certain ways. my ideal cut stones have way more 'faces' to show me and i always see something new depending on where i am at. but some people just LOVE those shallower brilliant cut stones especially when they have nice angle relations going on...which it seems like yours does. different strokes for different folks...everyone's *eyes* are going to be different too as well. and perception on how you view the stone. so if Spot looks better to you and you feel like it speaks to you more then it's not right or wrong. it just IS! good luck...

 

[rogue]

Beacon, it''s about $900 more than the E SI1. Sigh.

Spot''s crown height is 14% per GIA; SC''s crown height is 15.7% per Sarin, 15.5% per GIA.

Mara, I think I have a preference for white light return, mmm, icy white. But, that being said, I think my stone still had more fire than the SC. If you believe the HCA, it''s supposed to with a score of 1, but not sure if that''s consistent with the larger table...It was hard to measure fire though in the office. Barry turned off his lights and I essentially crouched under the desk, which helped a bit but was not exactlly scientific.

 

[rogue]

Some early morning pics in NYC...