Please help me choose between two stones!

[juliejulei]

Please could you help me choose between the two below stones. The second stone is marginally above our budget but we can stretch to it, and on paper should immediately be better (F v H, although VS2 rather than VS1, 1.73 over 1.67). However, I'm concerned that it might be a "wide" stone with little depth as it's only 58.5% and I'm not sure how "bad" this is. Is the first stone a better overall cut?

THANK YOU!


Stone 1 (branded jeweller):
GIA certified
Brilliant cut
7.66 x 7.69 x 4.67
1.67 carats
H
VS1
Triple excellent
Flourescence: Faint
Total depth: 60.9%
Table size: 57%
Crown angle: 32.5 degrees
Crown height: 13.5%
Pavilion angle: 41.2 degrees
Pavilion depth: 44%
Star length: 50%
Lower half length: 80%
Girdle: medium to slightly thick faceted 3.5%
Culet: none


Stone 2 (c. $2,300 more expensive, not from a brand):
GIA certified
Brilliant cut
7.89 x 7.95 x 4.97
1.73 carats
F
VS2
Triple excellent
Flourescence: None
Total depth: 58.5%
Table size: 62%
Crown angle: 33.0 degrees
Crown height: 12.5%
Pavilion angle: 41.0 degrees
Pavilion depth: 43.5%
Star length: 55%
Lower half length: 80%
Girdle: medium to slightly thick faceted 3.0%
Culet: none

 

[TC1987]

Per Holloway cut Adviser (HCA, under Tools at top of page) Note: You might want to re-run these yourself. #2 was showing yellow/green/blue but not reds on the HCA. #1 was showing reds, fire.
Stone #2
Light Return Very Good
Fire Very Good
Scintillation Very Good
Spread or diameter for weight Excellent
Total Visual Performance 1.9 - Excellent, within TIC range

stone #1
Light Return Very Good
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Very Good
Spread or diameter for weight Very Good
Total Visual Performance 1.8 - Excellent, within TIC range

But, if you plug those numbers into the HCA, #2 appears to have very little fire, and loads of brilliance. #1 seems to have better potential for fire. I'd be inclined to look for something that had a higher % crown like 15% or so. The lower crowns _ larger tables sometimes have fire around the rim of the diamond, or may seem to lack fire until you tilt them. Shallow stones can look darker close-up, but still look great at arm''s length where most other people are going to see them.

I have a diamond with 58% depth and about that % table ( I can only remember the depth right now.) It's supposed to be a European cut, not Old European cut. It has a lower crown angle and lower crown height. It is a kind of cool and "silvery" diamond. It doesn't have anywhere near the fire that my H&A super-ideal does. But it's a pretty diamond, with great flashes of brilliance. I'd describe it as kind of a streamlines look, like the opposite of an Old European Cut diamond that has a tall and steep crown, very small table, chunky facets, and lots of fire. It didn't look dark to me, up close. It like it returns a lot of white light.

This is what's known as the "Pricescope cheat sheet" and it apparently isn't very popular with some people on here, because it is rather restrictive in the ranges that it allows. But:

depth - 60 - 62% - maybe allow up to 62.4%
table - 54- 57%
crown angle - 34- 35 degrees
pavilion angle - 40.6- 41 degrees
girdle - avoid extremes, look for thin to slightly thick, thin to medium etc
polish and symmetry - very good and above

note - with crown and pavilion angles at the shallower ends ( CA 34- PA 40.6) and steeper ( CA 35- PA 41) check to make sure these angles complement in that particular diamond - eyeballs, Idealscope, trusted vendor input - check as appropriate!

Crown and pavilion angles have to have the correct relationship to each other. Increase one, and then must decrease the other. Smaller table and steeper crown angle and taller crown tends toward fire. Large table, low crown angle, not as much % of the diamond in crown height and more % of it as pavilion depth can tend toward more brilliance with minimal fire.

I'm not an expert. I just tried to summarize. There is lots to read through here, for evaluating diamonds. There's also BIC, TIC, and FIC that you can search here. (brilliant, Tolkowsky, and fiery ideal cuts)

 

[bunnycat]

HI there-

If you are buying a stone through a jewelry store, is there a chance you could take a look at both of them somewhere away from the fancy store lighting that makes most diamonds extra sparkly? Maybe near a window where you can see what they look like in natural light? That may give you a better indication of which one is going to perform better. Store lighting is meant to make diamonds sparkle. Other lighting (natural, fluorescent) is a better test of the real world.

I would recommend buying an idealscope so you can to check light performance before making what's going to be a rather expensive purchase and reading a bit more on here about diamond cut and what makes a nice one, so you can go in very informed, just as you would if you were going to buy a car. You wouldn't buy that blind and just on the car salesman's recommendation I don't think.

Is the store trying to talk you in to the F saying that it's better or more sparkly because of the color? Because it's a really good cut that makes a diamond sparkle which you may already know.

Maybe one of the gurus will come on here to tell you more about these stones from the numbers you've posted. If you looked at the "cheat sheet" the numbers are a bit outside the "norms" of where the well performing stones tend to be and I wish I knew what other info to give you. I imagine there's special cases where the numbers are out of the norm and things look great, but I bet you'd need someone with a trained eye (gemologist) to tell you which ones those are through visuals or idealscope images.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Even though these diamonds may be better than many, I would reject both of them because you can get a better cut diamond. The first one is fine on table and depth, but I don't like such a low crown angle (prefer 34-35). The second one has a large table at 62 which means a smaller crown. There are millions of diamonds out there. So unless you have to trade-in or something with this particular jeweler, I would keep looking. Or ask them to bring in more stones. What is the pricing on these two, just out of curiosity?

 

[juliejulei]

Thanks for your help and feedback - it's rather intimidating spending this much money on something I'm so poorly educated on.

Unfortunately the stones are from different shops so it's hard for me to compare. I think I'll do what you all said and see some more stones rather than making a rush decision.

Out of interest, what are your thoughts on bluenile? If I find a stone there that meets all the right angles and depths, will that be my best bet?

 

[bunnycat]

Thanks for your help and feedback - it's rather intimidating spending this much money on something I'm so poorly educated on.

Unfortunately the stones are from different shops so it's hard for me to compare. I think I'll do what you all said and see some more stones rather than making a rush decision.

Out of interest, what are your thoughts on bluenile? If I find a stone there that meets all the right angles and depths, will that be my best bet?

Whew! It's good to hear you are open to looking elsewhere. Finding another stone would be my preference as well but one
never knows what a pesons reasons are for buying where
they buy.

If it were me, for the size and price range you are contemplating
I'd look at Brian Gavin Diamonds website or Whiteflash or Good Old Gold, mostly because
these sites have already done a lot of homework for you which takes some
more if the guesswork out.

Look in WF ACA line or Experr Selection (I think those
are the in house stones). There's sure to be a BGD equivalent.
Check to be sure the numbers are in the parameters listed. They
provide ideal scopes. I think for the best value you can look in the
H color range possibly lower if you're not color sensitive. Cut quality is what
makes a diamond sparkle well, not color. That's a personal
preference.

Post candidates and questions here.

No worries getting a well performing stone that way.