Please help evaluate two Tiffany stones

[Tiff1886]

Hello PriceScope - I am new and shopping for a "Tiffany" that is as close to a super ideal as possible. I realize this is hard to do and I'd have better luck with Whiteflash or Brian Gavin thanks to their great value, cut quality, and imaging.

Please help me evaluate these two stones. They are from Tiffany so I don't have any Idealscope or ASET images. I might be able to take a picture with my Idealscope in the store.

-Both are < 2 on HCA
-Both pass the PriceScope "recommended proportions"
-Both fall within Whiteflash ACA Specifications

I wanted to check to see if there were any insights from the PriceScope forum based on the cut specifications.

It may come down to which one has better optical symmetry when viewed with the Idealscope.

Thanks for your help!

Carat Weight	1.33	1.22
Measurements (L, W, D) in mm	7.04 x 7.06 x 4.36	6.83 x 6.87 x 4.22
Precision of Cut	Excellent	Excellent
Symmetry	Excellent	Excellent
Polish	Excellent	Excellent
Fluorescence	None	None
Clarity	VS1	VS1
Total Depth %	61.9	61.6
Table %	56	57
Crown Height %	15.2	14.6
Crown Angle	34.3	34.2
Star Length %	50	50
Pavilion Depth %	43.0	43.2
Pavilion Angle	40.8	40.9
Lower Half Length %	76	76
Girdle Thickness	Medium to Slightly Thick	Medium to Slightly Thick
Girdle Finish	Faceted	Faceted
Cutlet	None	None
HCA Light Return	Excellent	Excellent
HCA Fire	Excellent	Excellent
HCA Scintillation	Excellent	Very Good
HCA Spread	Very Good	Very Good
HCA Score	1 - Excellent - within TIC Range; Looks "BIG"	1.2 - Excellent - within TIC Range; Looks "BIG"

 

[LilAlex]

Am I missing the color or that was not a factor...?

 

[lovedogs]

I would pick the larger of the two if given the choice and they look the same under an IS

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Larger with a slightly shallower pavilion

 

[Tiff1886]

Am I missing the color or that was not a factor...?

Good observation - sorry I left that info out:
1.33 is a G
1.22 is a F

I had to cast a wide net just to find these two. There were a lot of steep and deep stones to filter through.

I was originally searching for a G VS1. Some feel an H VS2 is the sweet spot for round brilliants once you view them face up in a real world setting.

I figured I'd go up a grade in both color and clarity for peace of mind. I don't have the experience to really know what I'm doing when it comes to inspecting them for clarity or color. As we all know, Tiffany doesn't share any imaging so I wont have the benefit of the forum to inspect the stones "virtually."

I would pick the larger of the two if given the choice and they look the same under an IS

Larger with a slightly shallower pavilion

Thank you! FYI Garry - I got the Ideal-scope from your US partner Dave Atlas.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I have done lots of blind tests.
At half carat it is rare that anyone can ID the H from the D.
About 50:50 in 1ct sizes
The jump from H to G is about the same as F to D or G to E.
H to I is a very big jump as can be seen in price differences in rounds.

 

[Tiff1886]

Can you all check my understanding of the proportions on the 1.33ct stone:

-The pavilion angle is ideal
-The crown angle is a hair shallow (34.3 instead of 34.5 which would be ideal). In isolation, this would lead one to believe it is sacrificing fire.
-It has a 15.2% crown height. I think this is because it has a 56% table which leaves a bit more total mass on the upper portion of the stone.

Does the slightly smaller table help compensate for the slightly shallow crown angle and help shift the overall performance back toward a Tolkowsky Ideal? Thus helping achieve a bit more fire than the 34.3 crown angle would suggest?

I calculated the girdle thickness to be (61.9 - 15.2 - 43.0) = 3.7%. Did I do that right? It seems to align with the "medium to slightly thick" wording.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You are freaking us out now - you are splitting split hairs!

 

[Tiff1886]

You are freaking us out now - you are splitting split hairs!

Thanks. Glad to know we were able to get so close to ideal

 

[MissGotRocks]

I would choose the 1.33 sight unseen. Hopefully you will have an ASET scope to look at the diamond. Take pics for us if you can please!

 

[Sanderson44]

I would pick the 1.33. Hope you do; it will look great!
I used to be on PS for many years under an old name...and one of my first diamond necklaces was similar, and I also went with the H so it was slightly larger...

 

[RunningwithScissors]

I would go with the larger one. Getting over that 7 mm mark would be a mind clean issue for me, even as someone who is very color sensitive.

Have you found out what their upgrade policy is? For most of us, after wearing for a few years, our diamonds seem to shrink and we crave a bump up in size.

 

[yssie]

I have done lots of blind tests.
At half carat it is rare that anyone can ID the H from the D.

@RunningwithScissors could. I’d wager she could easily ID an E from a D in a fifteen pointer.

OP, the bigger for me too!

 

[Tiff1886]

Thanks for the responses.

According to their website, Tiffany will credit you your original purchase price as long as the upgrade costs 2x as much. That gets hard to do real quick as you go up in price.

The super ideal vendors beat them on both the upgrade policy and the stone.

It isn't a rational choice ... yet I still seek it.

 

[Petalouda]

Thanks for the responses.

According to their website, Tiffany will credit you your original purchase price as long as the upgrade costs 2x as much. That gets hard to do real quick as you go up in price.

The super ideal vendors beat them on both the upgrade policy and the stone.

It isn't a rational choice ... yet I still seek it.

I looked into upgrading my Tiffany soli a few times via Tiffany and each time, they "waived" the requirement of spending 2x as much. Honestly, I'm surprised they still have it on their website. It sounds antiquated by today's standards, IMO. It didn't matter to us because we were looking to upgrade from 1.3 to just over the 2 carat mark and by that point, it was 2x the price.

 

[Tiff1886]

I now have Ideal-Scope pictures. I tried real hard but still ended up with one of the pictures being a bit blurry. They may be tough to compare due to the difference in picture quality.

It seemed a bit easier to get all the arrows showing nice and dark and all at the same time on the 1.33 G VS1. The 1.33 may have better "optical symmetry."

I'm an amateur at this. Please let me know if you see anything bad in either of the Ideal-Scope images.

 

[Tiff1886]

Then I analyzed the settings - and how the stone sits in the 6 prong "head."

Aesthetically, the 1.33 looks like it is set a bit high in the mount. These pictures of the mount/setting give a fairly accurate representation of how it looks in person.

 

[MissGotRocks]

The IS images are certainly comparable. Did you happen to have the ASET scope with you?
It does appear that the prongs on the 1.33 are longer. Did one of those diamonds speak more to you than the other? Just interested to see what you thought.

 

[Tiff1886]

I don't have an ASET scope yet - so no ASET pics unfortunately.

-I like the 1.33 stone more
-I like the setting on the 1.22 more.

If I were working with one of the preferred sellers it would be easier. I'd simply pick out a super ideal, describe my preferences in mounting, and they would even make sure the prongs didn't cover the arrows

I am still trying to do it the hard way...

 

[RunningwithScissors]

I agree that the setting on the 1.22 F looks more attractive. I feel like the G is set too high. Are these in YG, or is it jus the warmth of the light in the photos? What do they say when you ask about the height of the G? Could they tweak that?

 

[MissGotRocks]

I don't have an ASET scope yet - so no ASET pics unfortunately.

-I like the 1.33 stone more
-I like the setting on the 1.22 more.

If I were working with one of the preferred sellers it would be easier. I'd simply pick out a super ideal, describe my preferences in mounting, and they would even make sure the prongs didn't cover the arrows

I am still trying to do it the hard way...

Would Tiffany be willing to change or modify the setting for the 1.33?

 

[Tiff1886]

Thanks for all your help - I really appreciate it!

They are both in Platinum 950. It is the lighting in the store making things look warm.

I mentioned to the SA at Tiffany that I thought the 1.33 G was set a bit high and I preferred the height on the 1.22 F.

Based on what I've heard about Tiffany & Co, I'm guessing they won't adjust the mount. They believe "every setting is perfectly crafted for each individual stone." I like the sound of that - but since all the stones are very close in proportion one would think all the Tiffany settings should also look nearly identical as well .

I can ask about adjusting the prongs - but I am betting they already think it is perfect.

I think they might change the head size for all their settings right around the 1.25ct weight. When I look at the "fluting" on the prong closest to the camera lens, it goes up higher on the 1.33 G. Tiffany might be starting with different head sizes on each of these stones. This might help account for the large difference in the prongs for two similarly sized stones.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Thanks for all your help - I really appreciate it!

They are both in Platinum 950. It is the lighting in the store making things look warm.

I mentioned to the SA at Tiffany that I thought the 1.33 G was set a bit high and I preferred the height on the 1.22 F.

Based on what I've heard about Tiffany & Co, I'm guessing they won't adjust the mount. They believe "every setting is perfectly crafted for each individual stone." I like the sound of that - but since all the stones are very close in proportion one would think all the Tiffany settings should also look nearly identical as well .

I can ask about adjusting the prongs - but I am betting they already think it is perfect.

I think they might change the head size for all their settings right around the 1.25ct weight. When I look at the "fluting" on the prong closest to the camera lens, it goes up higher on the 1.33 G. Tiffany might be starting with different head sizes on each of these stones. This might help account for the large difference in the prongs for two similarly sized stones.

You may be correct but you never know until you ask. Don't want to wonder about it all the rest of your days - lol! Even so, will you go for the 1.33 or are you still pondering your choices?

 

[Tiff1886]

Still pondering. I will ask though. I also found out they have one more stone I can see this week that falls within the recommended proportions. I'll update when I have more info. Thanks!

 

[Tiff1886]

I have now compared all the stones side by side at the same time. The two front runners are still the 1.33 G VS1 and the 1.22 F VS1 I posted about originally.

Although the 1.33 G VS1 has arrows that photographed better, the very center of the 1.22 G VS1 is actually more symmetric (8 pointed star in center). Taking all factors into account when viewing with the idealscope in person, I'd say they are almost a tie - with a slight edge still going to the 1.33.

Did one of those diamonds speak more to you than the other?

I noticed that when I slowly roll the diamonds around under spotlighting, the 1.22 F VS1 has more uniform sparkle and fire.

On the 1.33 G VS1, its as if the "arrow shafts" never really catch any sparkle or fire - most of it seems to be concentrated further out in the stone (where the star facets are). The overall sparkle seemed a bit more uneven (as if the stone has a few favorite places to sparkle from).

On the 1.22 F VS1 the arrow shafts would occasionally light up in a bold flash with some fire (larger, bright flash of rainbow) and the sparkles seemed to be spread more evenly across the entire surface of the stone.

Is it possible that the 1.33 can have better proportions, and more crisp arrows, yet the 1.22 could actually perform better to the naked eye?

 

[breanne]

I have now compared all the stones side by side at the same time. The two front runners are still the 1.33 G VS1 and the 1.22 F VS1 I posted about originally.

Although the 1.33 G VS1 has arrows that photographed better, the very center of the 1.22 G VS1 is actually more symmetric (8 pointed star in center). Taking all factors into account when viewing with the idealscope in person, I'd say they are almost a tie - with a slight edge still going to the 1.33.



I noticed that when I slowly roll the diamonds around under spotlighting, the 1.22 F VS1 has more uniform sparkle and fire.

On the 1.33 G VS1, its as if the "arrow shafts" never really catch any sparkle or fire - most of it seems to be concentrated further out in the stone (where the star facets are). The overall sparkle seemed a bit more uneven (as if the stone has a few favorite places to sparkle from).

On the 1.22 F VS1 the arrow shafts would occasionally light up in a bold flash with some fire (larger, bright flash of rainbow) and the sparkles seemed to be spread more evenly across the entire surface of the stone.

Is it possible that the 1.33 can have better proportions, and more crisp arrows, yet the 1.22 could actually perform better to the naked eye?

I’d say it is possible because that’s what you saw. So go with the one that spoke to you.

 

[katyb]

As Victor Canera once said, "You could have a diamond with perfect proportions and still not be a nice stone." He posted this image to prove his point.

https://imgur.com/a/ouhQGGg

 

[Tiff1886]

Hi Folks - I am trying to understand if the 1.22 F VS1 is still considered "ideal" on this Forum.

My personal preference would be a Tolkowsky Ideal Cut that leans toward fire/dispersion. I also lean towards bold flash over pin flash scintillation.

That probably means the perfect stone for me is something like this:
55-56 Table
35.0 Crown Angle
40.7 Pavilion Angle
75 Lower Half Length
50-55 Stars

Would the diamond enthusiasts on this form still consider the 1.22 F VS1 "Ideal" even though the 40.9 pavilion angle is a bit steep?

-It still falls in the AGS Ideal area on the chart
-It meets the exterior proportions for a "WhiteFlash ACA" (but not 3d optical symmetry)

I am pretty sure it is nearly impossible to find a "Super Ideal" at Tiffany. I have yet to see an arrows pattern as good as the stones from WhiteFlash or Brian Gavin.

How would we classify the 1.22 F VS1? Would we call it an ideal but NOT a super ideal?

Would searching for a stone that leans more toward Firey balance actually result in a real world difference? I have seen some threads that say once you are in the "ideal" range of proportions, you really wont see much difference and real fire comes from an Old European Cut.

Are VS1's always eye-clean and are they always safe from having an inclusion that would affect light performance?

 

[DejaWiz]

Hi Folks - I am trying to understand if the 1.22 F VS1 is still considered "ideal" on this Forum.

My personal preference would be a Tolkowsky Ideal Cut that leans toward fire/dispersion. I also lean towards bold flash over pin flash scintillation.

That probably means the perfect stone for me is something like this:
55-56 Table
35.0 Crown Angle
40.7 Pavilion Angle
75 Lower Half Length
50-55 Stars

Would the diamond enthusiasts on this form still consider the 1.22 F VS1 "Ideal" even though the 40.9 pavilion angle is a bit steep?

-It still falls in the AGS Ideal area on the chart
-It meets the exterior proportions for a "WhiteFlash ACA" (but not 3d optical symmetry)

I am pretty sure it is nearly impossible to find a "Super Ideal" at Tiffany. I have yet to see an arrows pattern as good as the stones from WhiteFlash or Brian Gavin.

How would we classify the 1.22 F VS1? Would we call it an ideal but NOT a super ideal?

Would searching for a stone that leans more toward Firey balance actually result in a real world difference? I have seen some threads that say once you are in the "ideal" range of proportions, you really wont see much difference and real fire comes from an Old European Cut.

Are VS1's always eye-clean and are they always safe from having an inclusion that would affect light performance?

Yes, absolutely falls within recommended ideal proportions and angles.
VS1 is an extremely safe clarity grade...only in "blue moon" examples are there issues with the rare example that may have clarity based on clouds which would cause reduced transparency and optical performance.

 

[katyb]

The numbers look great, but they're only part of the story. The rest of the story is what you see with your own eyes.