PS'ers Final Opinion on my PoH Diamond Choice

[rock-novice]

As this is my first post here, let me say thank you to all who post and provide invaluable information to those individuals such as myself that are taking the plunge into diamond education. I can never truly express my appreciation for this site and all I've learned.

My 1.5 month journey from initial education, to selection and now to just before purchase has been a stressful but rewarding one. I will be the first to admit that I'm truly blessed to have such a simple girlfriend that gave me complete creative control over the stone and ring selection as she is truly happy with anything I give her. Let me also say that I'm a details person and the exact polar opposite of her in that respect. In other words, I'm the problem here.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I initially leaned toward a radiant cut (please don't throw stones just yet) due to her height and finger length (she is a few inches shorter than me at 6' tall) with a l/w ratio of 1.2 - 1.4. I thought the elongated stone would look quite nice on her long slender fingers. Enter my first headache in that it seemed impossible to hunt down a high quality radiant that excelled in the optical department. After a short fling with princess cuts, which are my personal favorite, I've decided on a PoH stone for its square shape but light reflection pattern similar to a round. I really didn't a great vibe from her while showing her videos online of princess cuts with excellent optics.

I wanted to reach out and kindly ask the many respected/educated members of this community if they could take a look at the link below to Good Old Gold and give me feedback on this particular stone. I noticed they didn't have the normal ASET, diam xray and a few other metrics posted for this stone, so if everyone feels it better that I obtain and post them first prior to making my purchase, please let me know.

Thanks in advance for offering guidance in this very exciting stage of my life!


http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9990/

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think it is a gorgeous, gorgeous stone! I like it much more than a princess cut. I would recommend a halo setting for most square cuts since they can be deeper and face up smaller than a round of the same weight. Have you picked out a setting yet?

 

[Acinom]

I am not a diamond but to me the stone looks stunning!!!
And if Diamondseeker says it's a great stone then it absolutely is a great stone

Any ideas on how you will have it set or will you pick the setting together with your girlfriend now that you found te stone.

 

[JulieN]

There is a cheaper 2 ct H at james allen if you are interested.

 

[arkieb1]

That IS a stunning stone. The only part of your post that concerns me is that you state she wasn't warm and fuzzy when you showed her princess cuts with max optics. I wonder if she will actually like this stone? There is nothing wrong with it at all, it's an amazing cut but if she has her heart set on a radiant or something that is a long thin rectangle and nothing else then you should perhaps think about that. If on the other hand you think she will love this stone then go for it.

 

[delight]

Looks like a great choice!

 

[me&myboys]

That IS a stunning stone. The only part of your post that concerns me is that you state she wasn't warm and fuzzy when you showed her princess cuts with max optics. I wonder if she will actually like this stone? There is nothing wrong with it at all, it's an amazing cut but if she has her heart set on a radiant or something that is a long thin rectangle and nothing else then you should perhaps think about that. If on the other hand you think she will love this stone then go for it.

+1

 

[rock-novice]

diamondseeker2006:Thanks for the feedback!! I've asked her for input on the ring and she's gone to a few stores and given me very general/basic preferences. As it stands now, the decision to go with a PoH was only made today, so I'm unsure if my current idea for the ring is even still relevant. I'm looking at a micro pave with diamonds on 3 sides and on 3/4 of the band. She does not like thick bands, so I'm looking for something on the thinner side. A halo is definitely part of the design, and I'm hoping to incorporate some milgrain into the design although I'm not sure how that would look. The halo I'm after will not stick out that far, aka pancake effect as most radiant rings have, but would be more compact and would elevate the stone instead.

A band such as this http://www.debebians.com/diamond-halo-engagement-ring.html but on the thinner side with equal sized diamonds on the band to reduce the thickness perhaps. For the halo, I'd like it to mimic this ring here http://www.overstock.com/Jewelry-Wa...efccid=NVIG23AJAQW2ZVSDUKUB6TFCAU&searchidx=4 as it elevates the stone slightly. Another example would be this one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/231077376521?lpid=82.

I've still not yet even begun to research ring makers or even see what some off-the-shelf designs would fit what I have in my head. The idea for micro pave made sense at the time when I was considering a traditional princess with excellent optics as the smaller fire/flashes would go well with the flash from the ring. Not sure how this would now look with a "chunkier" fire/flash pattern. Any feedback on ring ideas for the stone would be appreciated!


Acinom: We've gone to a few stores, however since we're long distance, it's only been done a few times. I believe I've gotten enough from her to know the direction and it will be me alone working on the design.


JulieN: Thanks for the heads up Julie. JA does not call out specifically the hearts/arrows square shapes from what I've seen, so being the novice that I am, I didn't want to assume anything. Incidentally GOG has a 2.07 G VS1 for sale too, but like the JA, its also outside the colorless range and I'm simply not well versed in non D-F color ranges and their overall impact on the stone from varying angles.


arkieb1: In the videos I've sent her, she commented on not being overly thrilled with the "X" pattern the princess has. Granted the video magnifies this, however when I showed her GOG's PoH videos along side the Solasfera or any other princess with great optics, she really liked the PoH. In an ideal world, I'd be able to get her a radiant with a l/w ratio of 1.3-1.4 that didnt have a crushed ice look, however part of the reason for paying the premium was so I didn't have to have multiple stones looked at by appraisers in an effort to find that perfect stone. I did consider giving the Original Radiant Cut folks a call, but I'm just not finding any evidence that a radiant with a rectangular shape can avoid the crushed ice look.


delight: Thank you!



In looking at the AGS report for the stone in my original post, there seem to be a cluster of feathers. Is this something I should be worried about in the VS2 range? Perhaps I'm interpreting the image incorrectly, however I'm wondering what disadvantages there might be regarding this.

 

[Gypsy]

I'd get the 2 carat G VS instead.
You wont't be able to see a difference at all face up. They have ideal light performance. And trust me you want ALL the spread (face up dimensions) you can get.

You aren't sacrificing anything with the G. Trust me.

 

[JulieN]

I see GOG also has a 2.3 H with Strong Blue fluoro for about the same price as the E. Very tempting...

 

[Gypsy]

I see GOG also has a 2.3 H with Strong Blue fluoro for about the same price as the E. Very tempting...

OMG totally.

I'd ask for a video at GOG or pictures comparing the the E, G and H face up and from the side.

 

[rock-novice]

I see GOG also has a 2.3 H with Strong Blue fluoro for about the same price as the E. Very tempting...

OMG totally.

I'd ask for a video at GOG or pictures comparing the the E, G and H face up and from the side.

Hi Gypsy. The stone is being brought in and I'm trying to get some other options lined up (specifically a decent radiant with a 1.3 - 1/4 l/w ratio) for a comparison.


In reading posts on PS about fluorescence, it appears there's people on both ends when it comes to reports with a "strong blue fluorescence" grading. Some say it helps a stone that falls outside the D-F color range. Then there's also those that say that SBF in a colorless stone may not necessarily be a good thing.

 

[Gypsy]

There's no fence when it comes to fluorescence.

Either it makes the diamond hazy or it doesn't. So all you have to do is ask GOG: does the strong blue make the stone hazy. If the answer is no, you are fine.

It's a yes or no question.

 

[rock-novice]

Thanks Gypsy, I'll run it by Jon and will use that stone to compare to the one I have coming. That being said, JulieN pointed out the the stone in question and I would like input on how the numbers stacked up against the two as it pertains to face-up view. The diamond with SBF has been priced to move as it appears no one has picked it up as of yet. While there is an inclusion (cloud/crystals) in/around the table, it is a VS2 stone and should be completely eye clean. If anyone could provide feedback as I'm unable to interpret these numbers visually yet with respect to depth and table % and their overall impact on appearance, it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!


1) Carat Weight: 1.72ct
Color: E
Clarity: VS2
AGS Cut Grade: Ideal
Optical Symmetry: Princess of Hearts
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Fluorescence: None
Culet: None
Width: 6.67mm
Length: 6.67mm
Depth: 4.93mm
Table Percentage: 55.20%
Depth Percentage: 73.90%
Crown ∠: 35.90°
Pavilion ∠:40.90°



2) Carat Weight: 2.30ct
Color: H
Clarity: VS2
Optical Symmetry: Princess of Hearts
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: Strong
Culet: None
Width: 7.38mm
Length: 7.38mm
Depth: 5.41mm
Table Percentage: 56.00%
Depth Percentage: 65.40%
Crown ∠: 34.50°
Crown Depth: 14.71%
Pavilion ∠: 40.75°
Pavilion Depth: 46.92%

 

[0-0-0]

The H is going to look much bigger in person. As long as it is eye clean and not hazy that would be my pick.

 

[rock-novice]

Thanks thbmok.

Jon and company at GOG have just posted up diamxray, ASET, hearts and arrows images for the 1.72 stone in question. Working with them thus far has been a great experience. I've included the links below to the 1.72 E VS2 and 2.30 H VS2.


1.72 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9990/


2.30 http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/8062/

 

[diamondseeker2006]

My last diamond had SBF, and I LOVED the fluorescence. I honestly think it is ignorance when jewelers talk badly about it. I think it ought to cost more! But thankfully it doesn't!!! I upgraded to a different specialty cut with GOG and didn't have the option of fluorescence. But I would choose it if I had the option.

I personally would rather have a 2.3 ct H over a 1.7 E color stone when the diamonds are excellent cut. I would also rather have the 2 ct G color stone over the 1.7 E.

In regard to the setting, an antique style halo with pave on the shank would be beautiful, but I strongly recommend that the sides of the band/shank be either plain or engraved and not three sided pave. That causes problems with wearing a wedding band next to it.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I just saw a PoH and Radiant video posted, so it might be for you! But hands down, the PoHs far outshine the radiants, in my opinion! A PoH is not something she is going to see very often, if ever, and I would far rather have either PoH stone than a generic radiant (comparing the ones pictured).

 

[Gypsy]

Oh yeah baby. I'd get that 2.3 in a heartbeat. That is not even a question in my mind.

 

[JulieN]

2.3! 2.3! 2.3!