Please help! Accept or reject-- for appaisal

[Daniel B]

Hey everyone!
I have know idea why everything is underlined, i cant fix it??? (probably because i cut and pasted these links?)

I was sent these diamonds in my E-mail, but i dont particularily like any of them. I dont like the IS images or the BS images. PLEASE take a quick glance at these and tell me if im luney or i''m right about rejecting these stones. I''m not going to make a quick decision. My budget is around 7,000. can go above a little if necessary. Im going to compare an H&A and a Solasfera at a local appraiser''s. The Solasfera I am thinking about is at the bottom.


Thanks a lot everyone!!!!!!!!!!

1) http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_026ct_g_si2_ideal.htm

2)http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_031ct_g_si2_h&a.htm
3) http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_022ct_f_si1_h&a.htm

4) http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_202ct_h_si1_h&a.htm

5)http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_24ct_h_vs2_h&a.htm

6) http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_11ct_f_si2_h&a.htm

Solasfera 00465
1.10
I
SI1
6.75x6.79x4.09
60.4
55
VTN-TN Fac
N
VG
EX
N
$6,950.00
$7,106.38

 

[Shay37]

Date: 11/19/2005 3:36:09 PM
Author:Daniel B


Hey everyone!
I have know idea why everything is underlined, i cant fix it??? (probably because i cut and pasted these links?)

I was sent these diamonds in my E-mail, but i dont particularily like any of them. I dont like the IS images or the BS images. PLEASE take a quick glance at these and tell me if im luney or i''m right about rejecting these stones. I''m not going to make a quick decision. My budget is around 7,000. can go above a little if necessary. Im going to compare an H&A and a Solasfera at a local appraiser''s. The Solasfera I am thinking about is at the bottom.


Thanks a lot everyone!!!!!!!!!!

1) http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_026ct_g_si2_ideal.htm

2)http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_031ct_g_si2_h&a.htm
3) http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_022ct_f_si1_h&a.htm

4) http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_202ct_h_si1_h&a.htm

5)http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_24ct_h_vs2_h&a.htm

6) http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_11ct_f_si2_h&a.htm

Solasfera 00465
1.10
I
SI1
6.75x6.79x4.09
60.4
55
VTN-TN Fac
N
VG
EX
N
$6,950.00
$7,106.38

I do not like the first four. They appear to me (I could be wrong) as if they are reflectors. (one inclusion reflecting around in the diamond). I would not like that at all. The H VS2 obviously does not have that problem, but the B-scope does not impress me overly. The F SI2 however does not seem problematic. It looks like it has good numbers a nice B-scope. I did not think the IS was bad at all. Of the six, I would pick that one. If you don''t love it, don''t get it.

As far as the Solasfera, I have no idea. I''m sorry I can''t be more help.

shay

 

[ecf8503]

I like the F SI2 and the H VS2.

The 1.24 H VS2 appears to be gone already - did you grab it? It looked good - I thought the BS was nice - maybe even better than the F SI2! But it looks like it will be a more fiery stone than others (less white light return, more colored light return). It has good activity in all light views, etc. You may actually prefer a more fiery stone - I personally love color!

Keep in mind too that Jonathan doesn''t use an Idealscope - it''s called a Lightscope (link here). So the images won''t look the same as an Idealscope (similar, though).

The Solasfera''s are cut to give gorgeous test results - I haven''t seen any of them on Jonathan''s site that were anything less than blood red scopes with BS''s that pegged the scales. But - there are more facets, more arrows, more "action" - it will be a busier looking stone I''m sure (I''ve never seen one in person, though). Kind of like comparing navel oanges and blood oranges - they both are oranges (like these are both H&A RB''s) but are very different.

Let us know what you think of the Solasfera in person -

 

[Daniel B]

Date: 11/19/2005 5:47:10 PM
Author: ecf8503
Let us know what you think of the Solasfera in person -

Yes, i will! I cant wait to see it in person, too!

 

[Rhino]

ecf is correct. The red reflector images we post show sharper distinctions between dark reds and pale reds and the link you provided explains those differences. Thanks for posting that. If we were to take the same shots under an ideal-scope all the reds would appear to be the same saturation.

Shay, thank you kindly for your input. Just curious ... do the first images posted on those pages of the first 4 stones lead you to believe they are eye visible inclusions? If so we have to make some corrections or notations to those. I appreciate your feedback.

Kind regards,
Jon

 

[strmrdr]

sorry....
too much work for my weary arm going over 6 stones right now.
narrow it down to 2 or 3 and I will see what I can see.
maybe tomorrow if your still interested i can tackle the 6 if you cant narrow it down.

 

[Daniel B]

Thanks everyone, but I am coosing this stone to compare with the Solasfera
http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_18ct_g_vs2_h&a1.htm

Does it seem like a good choice to you guys?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/19/2005 6:23:19 PM
Author: Daniel B
Thanks everyone, but I am coosing this stone to compare with the Solasfera

http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_18ct_g_vs2_h&a1.htm


Does it seem like a good choice to you guys?

yes it does.
nice gog classic.

 

[Daniel B]

Stoem~
What makes it gog classic? How does perform compared to the new ones?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/19/2005 6:55:09 PM
Author: Daniel B
Stoem~

What makes it gog classic? How does perform compared to the new ones?

little history lesson:
The gog classic is one of 2 lines that made the GOG reputation for awesome h&a diamonds.
The other is the gog special which the cutter of got put out of business by Debeers soc program.

they both are kicken diamonds.

There is another line that is cut to simular specs that are the GOG classic specs by another cutter.
That one was cut by the original cutter.

He has several other lines from different cutters.
They are kicken diamonds also with various personalities.

I like the personality of the classics over most of the others.

 

[Shay37]

Date: 11/19/2005 6:23:19 PM
Author: Daniel B
Thanks everyone, but I am coosing this stone to compare with the Solasfera
http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_18ct_g_vs2_h&a1.htm

Does it seem like a good choice to you guys?

Primo choice, Daniel. I like it the best of all. Woohoo. Excellent choice. It should be a sparkler.

shay

 

[Daniel B]

Date: 11/19/2005 7:27:27 PM
Author: strmrdr
I like the personality of the classics over most of the others.

It seems it may have a little more contrast than other H&a''s, is this correct? But why do You like it better?

 

[Shay37]

Date: 11/19/2005 6:02:52 PM
Author: Rhino
ecf is correct. The red reflector images we post show sharper distinctions between dark reds and pale reds and the link you provided explains those differences. Thanks for posting that. If we were to take the same shots under an ideal-scope all the reds would appear to be the same saturation.

Shay, thank you kindly for your input. Just curious ... do the first images posted on those pages of the first 4 stones lead you to believe they are eye visible inclusions? If so we have to make some corrections or notations to those. I appreciate your feedback.

Kind regards,
Jon

Jonathan, yes that was worrisome to me. It''s also (I hate to admit) a mindclean thing to me as well. Thanks to DF for coining that phrase for MMM.

I really think that it helps when I see a "reflector" to be reassured somewhere on that page that it is eyeclean. Just a thought. I know that''s a lot of work for you guys, and I don''t think it matters so much when the stone''s inclusions seem limited, but those "reflectors" I think really need that notation. Just from a consumer standpoint, and thank you for asking my opinion.

shay

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/19/2005 7:46:54 PM
Author: Daniel B

Date: 11/19/2005 7:27:27 PM

Author: strmrdr

I like the personality of the classics over most of the others.

It seems it may have a little more contrast than other H&a's, is this correct? But why do You like it better?

I like bright diamonds.
The crown angles on the shallow side with a 40.8-41 pavilion with med/long lgf and big stars make for a very bright diamond.
cut right they also have a lot of fire.


The classics run 78%-79% lgf% and 55-62 stars.
The specials ran 79%-82% lgf% and 60%-65% stars.

The classics are proabably the better balanced of the 2 performance wise but I miss the specials.

The specials were cut for pure light return power and got triple vh on the b-scope on pure power.
They also scored 9.8 on the isee2 and had super tight optical and physical symmetry which is what made them able to cut to the edge and scream.
Slip up just a little on either and they wernt as good.

Very few cutters cut on the edge, the gog special cutters and Paul's infinity line where/are exceptions.

The classics are awesome in there own right and a little better balanced and back a bit from the edge.

When you get to that level were talking small differences in personality here not quality differences.

edit: yes it has nice contrast. Its a good pick for the comparison.

 

[Daniel B]

Oooooh, Thanks for the input Storm

 

[Rhino]

Date: 11/19/2005 7:50:45 PM
Author: Shay37

Date: 11/19/2005 6:02:52 PM
Author: Rhino
ecf is correct. The red reflector images we post show sharper distinctions between dark reds and pale reds and the link you provided explains those differences. Thanks for posting that. If we were to take the same shots under an ideal-scope all the reds would appear to be the same saturation.

Shay, thank you kindly for your input. Just curious ... do the first images posted on those pages of the first 4 stones lead you to believe they are eye visible inclusions? If so we have to make some corrections or notations to those. I appreciate your feedback.

Kind regards,
Jon

Jonathan, yes that was worrisome to me. It''s also (I hate to admit) a mindclean thing to me as well. Thanks to DF for coining that phrase for MMM.

I really think that it helps when I see a ''reflector'' to be reassured somewhere on that page that it is eyeclean. Just a thought. I know that''s a lot of work for you guys, and I don''t think it matters so much when the stone''s inclusions seem limited, but those ''reflectors'' I think really need that notation. Just from a consumer standpoint, and thank you for asking my opinion.

shay

Hi Shay,

Sorry I couldn''t respond sooner and I appreciate your candidness. I hear you about the "mind clean" thing. DF has a knack for hitting the proverbial nail on the head.

At the end of the day your conscience, above all, must be clear and my general counsel is along those lines to clients/potiential clients as well. If it doesn''t sit right with ya don''t go with it, or if the person''s education is lacking on a particular subject which may be bugging them, we try to help clear the air in that arena too. One common misconception generally revolves around BrillianceScope results which is going to be straightened out on the new site and also the issues of clarity which Dan and yourself has brought up. Your suggestion will be incorporated into our new template as well since we screen stones for how eye clean or not they are. Once again ... a sincere thanks.

Warm regards and Happy Thanksgiving to you if I don''t make it here during the week,
Jonathan

PS: Strm ... thanks for the explanation about the various lines of H&A we feature. The 1.18ct in the link has insane optics and if there was a flavor of H&A to compare to a Solasfera that''d be an excellent comparison. There is a difference Dan will see between the 2 though. It''ll be interesting to see which he favors more. Dan ...if you need me personally for anything you know how to get me. Peace.

 

[Shay37]

Date: 11/21/2005 12:02:50 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 11/19/2005 7:50:45 PM
Author: Shay37

Date: 11/19/2005 6:02:52 PM
Author: Rhino
ecf is correct. The red reflector images we post show sharper distinctions between dark reds and pale reds and the link you provided explains those differences. Thanks for posting that. If we were to take the same shots under an ideal-scope all the reds would appear to be the same saturation.

Shay, thank you kindly for your input. Just curious ... do the first images posted on those pages of the first 4 stones lead you to believe they are eye visible inclusions? If so we have to make some corrections or notations to those. I appreciate your feedback.

Kind regards,
Jon

Jonathan, yes that was worrisome to me. It''s also (I hate to admit) a mindclean thing to me as well. Thanks to DF for coining that phrase for MMM.

I really think that it helps when I see a ''reflector'' to be reassured somewhere on that page that it is eyeclean. Just a thought. I know that''s a lot of work for you guys, and I don''t think it matters so much when the stone''s inclusions seem limited, but those ''reflectors'' I think really need that notation. Just from a consumer standpoint, and thank you for asking my opinion.

shay

Hi Shay,

Sorry I couldn''t respond sooner and I appreciate your candidness. I hear you about the ''mind clean'' thing. DF has a knack for hitting the proverbial nail on the head.

At the end of the day your conscience, above all, must be clear and my general counsel is along those lines to clients/potiential clients as well. If it doesn''t sit right with ya don''t go with it, or if the person''s education is lacking on a particular subject which may be bugging them, we try to help clear the air in that arena too. One common misconception generally revolves around BrillianceScope results which is going to be straightened out on the new site and also the issues of clarity which Dan and yourself has brought up. Your suggestion will be incorporated into our new template as well since we screen stones for how eye clean or not they are. Once again ... a sincere thanks.

Warm regards and Happy Thanksgiving to you if I don''t make it here during the week,
Jonathan

PS: Strm ... thanks for the explanation about the various lines of H&A we feature. The 1.18ct in the link has insane optics and if there was a flavor of H&A to compare to a Solasfera that''d be an excellent comparison. There is a difference Dan will see between the 2 though. It''ll be interesting to see which he favors more. Dan ...if you need me personally for anything you know how to get me. Peace.

Right back at you, kind sir.

Don''t eat too much.

shay

 

[Daniel B]

Date: 11/21/2005 12:02:50 PM
Author: Rhino
Dan ...if you need me personally for anything you know how to get me. Peace.

Thank you for the assurance, Jon
Happy Thanksgiving to all!