Placing too much emphasis on cut?

[lowspark]

In my search for the "perfect" diamond (within a budget), I''m afraid that I may be limiting myself too much by insisting on an ideal cut at the expense of other qualities. My research leads me to believe that cut should be my highest priority, but at the same time I want a good balance in terms of the "4 Cs"

Here''s one that I initially passed on based on the cut. This is from a well-known online dealer with a good rep around here:

round, GIA cert
0.9 ct
H
VS2
good cut
EX/EX
no fluor

6.16-6.19 x 3.75
60.7, 58 (depth, table)
34.5, 40 (crown, pav)
STK-TK girdle
no cutlet

We didn''t specifically discuss price, but based on the budget I had given him for the setting and stone it''s roughly a $3500-3700 diamond. Any thoughts on whether I''m being too picky?

 

[JulieN]

40.0?

no. don't do it.

 

[chrono]

This stone scores 1.6 TIC on the HCA BUT it also falls outside both the GIA Ex and AGS0 Ideal ratings, which sends red flags to me. I would be very cautious about this stone as they may be something "wrong" with its performance. Any Idealscope to back this up? What did the vendor say?

Perfection and pickiness is all up to the individual buyer. Some MUST have the super duper luper ideal cut, whereas for others, a well cut stone will suffice. Which camp do you fall in?

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 10/24/2007 12:19:45 PM
Author: JulieN
40.0?

no. don't do it.

Different strokes.

Julie might be in the majority.

Brightness takes a hit, but it's an affirmative HCA score.

Ideally, I'd compare it to one like this one, where I'd save just short of $1 K

Otherwise, a 1 carat costs nearly twice, with the same features.

(edited to add...) Chrono would be very cautious. I'd just be cautious. Compare.

 

[togal]

Date: 10/24/2007 12:21:40 PM
Author: Chrono
This stone scores 1.6 TIC on the HCA BUT it also falls outside both the GIA Ex and AGS0 Ideal ratings, which sends red flags to me. I would be very cautious about this stone as they may be something ''wrong'' with its performance. Any Idealscope to back this up? What did the vendor say?

Perfection and pickiness is all up to the individual buyer. Some MUST have the super duper luper ideal cut, whereas for others, a well cut stone will suffice. Which camp do you fall in?

I would assume, based on the article I read, which Jonathan wrote on the GOG website: "Consumer''s Guide to the HCA", that many combinations that get extremely favorable HCA scores fall quite a bit outside of the AGS Ideal and GIA ex ratings. Who to believe? This I find very confusing. I know that my stone is rated a GIA Ex according the GIA facetware, but only scores a 3.4 on the HCA. I''ve compared my stone to branded H & A''s, and mine outshined them. I think people need to be looking at the stones in person and actually comparing them with others. Without doing so, I don''t know how it''s possible to know if one is truly buying the best of the bunch.

 

[chrono]

Numbers alone can only get a person/stone so far in our speculations. At this point, I''d ask for Idealscope and ASET pictures for a better "feel" of how this diamond will perform.

 

[elmo]

Ah, this is one of the GIA "good" stones Garry likes better than many a GIA "excellent". In general, I think if you're going to pay the same for something not "ideal" as you would a great AGS ideal, why not get the ideal. That is the value proposition of the internet over many traditional sellers. But there are many beautiful diamonds you can buy "by eye", maybe like this one, that if priced attractively enough, may be nice enough, for me at least. Although not something to buy blindly by the numbers. By the way, internet sellers have a vested interest in convincing you otherwise.

 

[Regular Guy]

I think Jonathan, while using it, knocks the total benefit of the IS, too.

Recently JohnQ did a nice piece positioning the systems. He put HCA & AGA on the shallow side of things, GIA on the deeper side, and AGS (and, not coincidentally, WF) in the center (with their ACAs).

Alphabet soup?

AGS is probably a conservative dead center. But, it's narrowish.

For a lesser premium...other systems can point the way to quality, I think.

Eyes are good, and from one point of view, ultimately may be all you have...but as Bill Bray has said, and as I feel a bit...it's a little like kicking tires when you buy a car.

Trust & verify.

P.S. to Elmo...where you say..."In general, I think if you're going to pay the same for something non-ideal as you would a great AGS ideal, why not get the ideal..." I think this is a case not matching your circumstance, isn't it. See my comparable above.

 

[elmo]

Date: 10/24/2007 12:46:12 PM
Author: Regular Guy
P.S. to Elmo...where you say...'In general, I think if you're going to pay the same for something non-ideal as you would a great AGS ideal, why not get the ideal...' I think this is a case not matching your circumstance, isn't it. See my comparable above.

RG, I think you missed my point

. This one is a lot less than an H-VS ideal. If it looks good the savings may make it good enough to buy. If the OP's stated assumption about $3500-3700 is correct.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 10/24/2007 12:59:05 PM
Author: elmo

Date: 10/24/2007 12:46:12 PM
Author: Regular Guy
P.S. to Elmo...where you say...''In general, I think if you''re going to pay the same for something non-ideal as you would a great AGS ideal, why not get the ideal...'' I think this is a case not matching your circumstance, isn''t it. See my comparable above.

RG, I think you missed my point

. This one is a lot less than an H-VS ideal. If it looks good the savings may make it good enough to buy. If the OP''s stated assumption about $3500-3700 is correct.

Let''s see...are you a quick editor, or am I a sloppy reader? I''ll pick door # 2!

I''d still prefer to compare, though.

 

[elmo]

Date: 10/24/2007 1:04:22 PM
Author: Regular Guy
Let's see...are you a quick editor...?

No edit, except to my last post adding the caveat about the OP's stated price. I didn't catch that that was an assumption until later.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/24/2007 12:19:45 PM
Author: JulieN
40.0?

no. don't do it.

300% agree
If you want too bring costs well down go too vg/vg pol/sym decent but not h&a optical symetry eyeclean si2, J color but keep a great angle combo!

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 10/24/2007 1:37:46 PM
Author: strmrdr

but keep a great angle combo!

Hmmmmmmmmm

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/24/2007 12:46:12 PM
Author: Regular Guy
I think Jonathan, while using it, knocks the total benefit of the IS, too.

Recently JohnQ did a nice piece positioning the systems. He put HCA & AGA on the shallow side of things, GIA on the deeper side, and AGS (and, not coincidentally, WF) in the center (with their ACAs).

I think you may be thinking of this post, or similar, Ira?

Date: 6/19/2007 1:35:27 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

The HCA, AGA, AGS and GIA all differ slightly but there is strong overlap in recommended/top configurations.

For instance, let's take preferred pavilion angles: For 53-58% tables, pavilion angles of 40.6-41.0 have the greatest approval cross-system.

The AGS cut guidelines cite most candidates for 0 in that range.
The HCA and AGA prefer the shallow side (and a bit lower).
GIA prefers the steep side (and higher).

The prediction depends on overall configuration of course, but it's nice that strong overlap exists.

Two thoughts that are important to me personally:

1. You give me too much credit.

I didn't "put" those systems where they stand.

2. I'd like you to recognize that when I offer those comments it is to help people asking "Why do the HCA and GIA disagree!?"

If you read my summary comments in such threads (a examples) you'll find I try to make people more comfortable - not less - by illustrating why different systems disagree without condemning any of them.

Regarding "not coincidentally" you're correct, but not the way I took it to mean:

Yes, our ACA parameters earn top marks in all systems but I'd remind you that Brian established those parameters well before any of the systems existed (except AGA). His grandfather was brought from Amsterdam to South Africa to teach the art of cutting ideal diamonds at Majestic DCW in Johannesberg 70 years ago. He was cutting ideal makes when he learned of the superideal mvt. His current success is the result of hard work, commitment to cutting for performance -not weight- and generations of family expertise. In that sense we're obviously pleased that modern tech and research have confirmed what Brian's family knew years ago - but he is not surprised. Neither is Glenn Rothman, Richard VS or other fine cutters who produced a brand in the same "sweet" spot years before modern systems rewarded them. I daresay Paul did not turn to a lab to learn to cut diamonds (though Paul, Brian & others have partnered with the labs to teach and learn). The point is that ours and other established brands were there a decade or more ago - and there they have remained.

Having said the above, I may have misunderstood your meaning. If you were just saying that my overview of the different systems serves to highlight a range of diamonds that are rewarded across the board - including diamonds in this category offered by our competitors - I agree 100%.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/24/2007 2:02:29 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 10/24/2007 1:37:46 PM
Author: strmrdr

but keep a great angle combo!

Hmmmmmmmmm

?????
The crown pavilion relationship still drives light performance what has changed is what defines a great combo and how they are picked out and with more attention being paid too the supporting cast of facets.
But you can get around the fundamental relationship of c/p.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/24/2007 2:02:29 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 10/24/2007 1:37:46 PM
Author: strmrdr

but keep a great angle combo!

Hmmmmmmmmm

This post, and the one following, are nice graphic illustrations of why different systems will share some common ground - but may look for different things outside the overlap (depending on obstruction, 'CVE,' light-source independance or dependance, partridge, pear-tree, ...)

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 10/24/2007 3:11:04 PM
Author: strmrdr
The crown pavilion relationship still drives light performance what has changed is what defines a great combo and how they are picked out and with more attention being paid too the supporting cast of facets.
But you can get around the fundamental relationship of c/p.

Storm,

I''m no expert on HCA, but I observe...

- that it works on the simple output of 0 - 2
- it DOES primarily attend to C&P combinations. and also gathers data about table, depth & culet
- your comments in the linked thread above suggested buy in to the general output for HCA

So, maybe you want to clarify about the subset of HCA you prefer.

For some of us...myself anyway...it hurts our little heads to have to account for lots of exceptions.

 

[Ellen]

This would be money better spent. 2% off w/PS discount.

or

This one, if eyeclean. 3660.00 Bankwire

 

[Regular Guy]

Small techie question...

Date: 10/24/2007 3:19:29 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 10/24/2007 2:02:29 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 10/24/2007 1:37:46 PM
Author: strmrdr

but keep a great angle combo!

Hmmmmmmmmm

This post, and the one following, are nice graphic illustrations of why different systems will share some common ground - but may look for different things outside the overlap (depending on obstruction, ''CVE,'' light-source independance or dependance, partridge, pear-tree, ...)

The web address is the same for my link & Johns... but JQ...how are you bringing us to a place in the thead?

 

[lowspark]

Wow, I didn't expect so much feedback so soon.

I should probably point out that the setting I have in mind (I should say that she has in mind) is from the Ritani Endless Love collection. It's my understanding that this setting requires a Ritani stone.

I'm geographically limited in terms of quality stores where I can view a few good candidates side by side. Am I naive to think that I can pick a diamond based on specs and perhaps an Ideal-Scope image?

As I absorb some more of the knowledge contained in these replies I'll probably have additional questions. Thanks to everybody for helping out a poor rookie.

edit: Ira, JQ included #606995 in the URL to take you to the anchor tag with that name, which probably corresponds with that post number.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/24/2007 5:26:04 PM
Author: lowspark
Wow, I didn't expect so much feedback so soon.

I should probably point out that the setting I have in mind (I should say that she has in mind) is from the Ritani Endless Love collection. It's my understanding that this setting requires a Ritani stone.

I'm geographically limited in terms of quality stores where I can view a few good candidates side by side. Am I naive to think that I can pick a diamond based on specs and perhaps an Ideal-Scope image?

As I absorb some more of the knowledge contained in these replies I'll probably have additional questions. Thanks to everybody for helping out a poor rookie.

edit: Ira, JQ included #606995 in the URL to take you to the anchor tag with that name, which probably corresponds with that post number.

nope, It just has to be a stone the dealer is willing to have set in one.
Which means one from that dealer usualy.
GOG and Pearlmans are a dealer for them, so if your outside of NY or Michigan you could save some.

 

[lowspark]

nope, It just has to be a stone the dealer is willing to have set in one.

Which means one from that dealer usualy.

GOG and Pearlmans are a dealer for them, so if your outside of NY or Michigan you could save some.

GOG deals Ritani? I couldn''t find any reference to it on their site.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/24/2007 5:43:29 PM
Author: lowspark


GOG deals Ritani? I couldn''t find any reference to it on their site.

Im 95% certain they do unless something changed.

 

[Rhino]

100% they do.