questions re. gemexhttp://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/edit.asp?mode=new&catID=1&forumID=3&topicID= re

[lovegem]

I start to have second thoughts about a stone that I have a deposit on.

here it is, http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/4568/

can someone give me a general impression about this stone? I know it is not a traditional H&A, but comments on the gemex report may help me out a lot. It appears to me from the gemex report that the culet (the circle at the center) can hardly lit up. I looked at H&A and other solasfera''s Gemex reports and find that they can be very bright at the culet if they have a "very high light performance". For example, another solasfera http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/4579/

Am I correct to say that the second solasfera has better hearts?

If you were me, which solasfera would you choose? Thanks in advance.

 

[lovegem]

sorry I don''t know what happen to the title. I probably drag the link there by mistake.

 

[arjunajane]

The diamond that you have linked to I would think has the potential to be very nice.
It is, as you said, a different flavour of H&A with the skinnier arrows.
My preference leans toward the thicker arrows, but thats just me.

If you are unsure, the advantage of buying at GOG is the diamond videos that Jon films. Just email and ask Jon if he is able to do a video of this diamond, perhaps compared to the solasfera, filmed "in action". That should help you to decide what flavour of H&A your eyes like best.

 

[kcoursolle]

It''s a lovely diamond. Personally I prefer the look of well-cut traditional round brilliants though. They have broader flashes...and are cheaper too!

 

[Haywood74]

Either stone will be a winner. The thing to remember about Solasfera cuts is that they have a combination of thicker facets towards the center of the stone while the outer areas usually are loaded with pinfire. It is that combination of broad-flash and pinfire that lead to my purchase of one.

In regards to the pictures, I think the first stone has a better Arrows pic, but I think that it may be splitting hairs to venture a guess as to which is the better stone based solely on those photos alone. My advice is to ask GOG if they could video both stones side by side and see what your eyes tell you.

As far as which one to purchase, the first stone listed may be a bit of a better bargain. It does have an inclusion on the outer edge, which looks to me like it would fit perfectly under a prong once it's set. Even if is not completely covered, there will be so much fire coming out of that particular stone that you would hardly notice it unless you were looking specifically for an inclusion and knew where to look for it. One last thing, HCA has the first stone at 2.3 versus a 1.6 for the second. Once again, it comes down to which one your eyes tell you to go with as well as the price difference in the two and what you are getting for that difference. My personal choice would be stone #2 if you can fit it into your budget. Just my 2 cents worth : )

 

[lovegem]

Thanks guys. I am lucky that I have seen a few excellent cut H&A diamonds in person. I like them a lot, but I will not settle until I''ve compared the two different cuts in person. From what I have read about the solasfera I feel that''s something I want to try. The reason that the solasfera attracts me so much is because of the combination of broad and pin flashes I have seen on video. The flashes may not be as big as those thrown off by the H&A, but big enough.

Haywood, I will ask Jon to make me a video to compare these two solasferas, may as well throw in a H&A of the same size that I am also interested in. The problem with the 1.09 solasfera I''ve reserved is that the Gemex report shows many pin fires, but none of the images show the big fire or the whole surface lit up (except at view 3 where a very stone light might have been used). It seems like small patches of light here and there in all the views.

I guess I have to wait patiently till Tuesday to ask for a video. Our bank wire transfer problem (2 failed transfers, 1 pending

) may turn out to be an advantage to us after all.