Please comment on the ring I am going to buy

[pqcollectibles]

----------------
On 1/29/2004 4:42:30 PM nuthead wrote:

My old stone is better than that one. But I still think I overpaid by $500 to $1K.
----------------

I guess you got something better than a Super Ideal, Hearts and Arrows diamond then. NOT!

Typically on a trade in, MOST jewelers require you to spend double what you spent with them in the past. MOST jewelers won't allow full purchase price on a diamond bought from another jeweler.

You came here asking for help. People are trying to help you. You seem to only want affirmation on the diamond you have chosen and just want Members of the Forum to tell you some bargain basement price to try and get the new diamond.

Fools and their money.....

 

[nuthead]

I will get the GIA report and his other specs in writing. Once I have the stone, I will have another appraisal and see there is any BS going on.

Thanks a lot all guys!

 

[elmo]

Wanted to respond that just like with buying a car, including a tradein in the pricing and negotiation mix potentially confuses the situation to the buyer's disadvantage. But as others have said, getting full credit for a previous purchase changes how I'd evaluate pricing.

 

[diamondsman]

Getting a full credit and paying $1500-$2500 more for the new one(depending on which certificate the stone comes with G.I.A OR E.G.L) is not a good deal.
it's like buying the new stone for the right price,and selling the old one for less money.
I dont think it is a good deal.

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 1/29/2004 4:42:30 PM nuthead wrote:





My old stone is better than that one.
----------------

This is funny. Your old stone is definitely NOT better than the one that PQ posted because it's a super ideal H&A, excellently cut stone. Something I am QUITE SURE your vendor did not sell a few years ago.

This whole thing is similar to me fwd'ing the new ACA stone that I got for Greg to the titanium company and having them respond with 3 stones that are similar in terms of ctw and them saying 'here are some other options for you...yes they are more expensive by about $100 but you will see the CUT IS BETTER.' I almost fell on the floor laughing. Amazing how she could tell the cut is better on the stones they were attempting to sell me by having no relevant information other than table and depth. Total BS. Oh and $100 more. Not!

That ACA stone that PQ posted is probably almost as good as they can get...

 

[pqcollectibles]

----------------
On 1/30/2004 2:18:05 PM Mara wrote:

----------------
On 1/29/2004 4:42:30 PM nuthead wrote:





My old stone is better than that one.
----------------

This is funny. Your old stone is definitely NOT better than the one that PQ posted because it's a super ideal H&A, excellently cut stone. Something I am QUITE SURE your vendor did not sell a few years ago.

This whole thing is similar to me fwd'ing the new ACA stone that I got for Greg to the titanium company and having them respond with 3 stones that are similar in terms of ctw and them saying 'here are some other options for you...yes they are more expensive by about $100 but you will see the CUT IS BETTER.' I almost fell on the floor laughing. Amazing how she could tell the cut is better on the stones they were attempting to sell me by having no relevant information other than table and depth. Total BS. Oh and $100 more. Not!

That ACA stone that PQ posted is probably almost as good as they can get...

----------------

ROFL!!

 

[nuthead]

Ok, here is a comparison of the stone mentioned by Ideal Rock, and the one I purchased a few years ago

Ideal Rock My Old one

Report: AGS GIA
Shape: A Cut Above H&A Round
Carat: 0.896 0.90
Color: H H
Clarity: VS2 VS2
Depth: 60.6 57.1%
Table: 56 61%
Crown Angle: 34.6 34.5 (from vendor)
Crown %: 15.3 13.09 (from vendor)
Pavilion Angle: 40.9 40.75 (from vendor)
Pavilion %: 43.1 43.1 (from vendor)
Girdle: Faceted 1.0% to 1.6% Thin to thick, faceted
Polish: Ideal Very Good
Symmetry: Ideal Good
Culet: Pointed Very Small
Fluorescence: Negligible None
Measurements: 6.28-6.31X3.81 6.35-6.40*3.64

As I am typing the comparison, I realized that my old one is not near as good as the one mentioned by Ideal Rock when you look at the depth, table, and Symmetry, Polish, etc. I paid $5,800 for the old one, probably overpaid by $1K to $1.5K.

But the thing is, since I am trading in this one, I am getting a full credit for the old stone. Some comfort, I guess.

 

[roshita]

I was very curious about Garrys comments about the bogus nature of information on this stone, also on how he figured out the crown height. My partner is a mathematician and these are his comments for anyone who is interested.


Garry is correct in stating that there is no way to actually measure the crown height % and the pavillion depth % to two decimal places. Therefore, a seller specifying CH% and PD% to two decimal places is fabricating the information. The Sarin and Ogi machines do not state to two decimal places because they average a number of measurements.

It is a matter of simple Trigonometry to figure the crown height. However, you need to understand that the Sarin machine measure the actual angle of the crown and pavillion. The Ogi machine estimates the angles based on making the CH% + GT% + PD% = Total Depth %. Therefore, the crown angle of the same stone will be different when measured on the Sarin vs. the Ogi.

However, Garry is working with the stated 34.5 degree crown angle. The Diameter can be averaged to 7.365 mm. Given a table % of 56%, that means that the table measures (average) 4.1244 mm. That means that the (average diameter) - (average table) = 7.365 mm - 4.1244 mm = 3.24 mm. We have to divide this by two to get the measurement of the distance from the girdle to the point just under the edge of the table on the radiant from the center point on the plane of the girdle. This gives 1.62 mm.

We are working with a right triangle, that is, one of the angles of the triangle is 90 degrees. One angle is stated by the seller to be 34.5 degrees. Since the angles of a triangle total 180 degrees, it means that the final angle is 55.5 degrees. We know the three angle measurements and we know one side.

The conventional labelling is that the right angle is labelled C. Let B be the angle at the girdle, so this is the crown angle. Let A be the angle at the table. The sides opposite the angles are correspondingly labelled a, b and c. Therefore, the side a = 1.62 mm and the angle A = 55.5 degrees. Using Trigonometry, we are going to figure out side b, which also happens to be the crown height.

Since sin A = a/c, we know that c = (a)/(sinA) = (1.62)/(sin 55.5). Using a calculator, we calculate that the hypotenuse, c = (1.62)/(0.824126) = 1.9657. That means that the length of the distance from the middle of one side of the table to the girdle averages 1.97 mm.

We also know that the tan A = a/b. so therefore, the crown height, b = (a)/(tan A) = (1.62)/(tan 55.5) = (1.62)/(1.455009) = 1.113395. We round this down to 1.11 mm. This means that the crown height % = (1.11)/(7.365) = 15.07 %. We round this down to 15.1%.

Garry is trying to show that the seller's numbers clash. Using the seller's numbers the crown height % is 15.1%. Yet, the seller also states that crown height % is 16.21%. Garry is right.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks Russel for the trig lesson

I just punched the #'s into DiamCalc -it takes a few seconds