RB: opinions greatly appreciated

[dfm00]

Hi Everyone,

I''ve been lurking for several months and can''t believe how much I''ve learned about diamonds thanks to all of you. But now that it''s time for the final exam I feel like I could use some help. I''d love your thoughts on this diamond:

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-58818.htm

Item Code: GIA-15051038

. Report: GIA
. Shape: Round Ideal Cut
. Carat: 1.53
. Depth %: 60.9
. Table %: 55
. Crown Angle: 35
. Pavilion Angle: 40.8
. Girdle: Very Thin to Thin
. Measurements: 7.48-7.50X4.56
. Polish: Very Good
. Symmetry: Excellent
. Culet: None
. Fluorescence: None

HCA=1.4 (1 according to Sarin)


I had been looking for slightly better color and potentially less clarity, but I''ll have to decide for myself what my priorities are there. I''m really interested in predictions of light performance/visual appeal. I was originally attracted to the IS image, is it as good as my initial impression suggested? I''m even less comfortable interpreting the ASET, does it tell you anything else? Any thoughts on the proportions? They look good to me, though I''m wondering if the crown is a little steep.

The very thin girdle scares me a little; I like what it''s probably doing for spread but should I be worried about durability? The stone would likely be set in a Mark Patterson pave split (4) prong.

Thanks so much in advance for opinions on these questions and any other thoughts you might have.


Dave

 

[strmrdr]

the only concern I see is the v-thin girdle, ask about it.
looks like a nice near super-ideal diamond.

 

[strmrdr]

missed your other questions.

35 is on the high side but it works with this combo.
No worries there.
35/41 is where the problems can start and this one is 35/40.8.
I have a slight personal preference to other combos but this one works and my preference is in how I like my diamonds to look in certain lighting.

The girdle question is best answered by Brian with the stone in hand or from his notes.

 

[Ellen]

Looks like you found yourself a gorgeous stone!

The IS is fantastic, as is the asset, no worries there. As for the very thin girdle, it's best to just ask WF why it got that, might not be near as scary as it sounds.

If you like the answer on the girdle, and decide you're ok on the color and clarity, I see no reason not to get it!

ETA strm addressed the CA.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/5/2007 5:34:45 PM
Author: Ellen
Looks like you found yourself a gorgeous stone!

The IS is fantastic, as is the asset, no worries there. As for the very thin girdle, it''s best to just ask WF why it got that, might not be near as scary as it sounds.

If you like the answer on the girdle, and decide you''re ok on the color and clarity, I see no reason not to get it!

ETA strm addressed the CA.

Ditto!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

agree with the others, but why not look for G-H SI1 to SI2?

In 1.5ct the I will be able to be seen on occasions woith no effort, where as if you have fantastic eye sight you will never see even an SI2 unless you strain and try very hard.

 

[dfm00]

Thanks, all.

As I mentioned my original strategy was to sacrifice microscopic clarity for color. I think I''m leaning back in this direction, with a final big nudge from Garry. I guess I was also questioning how much difference I''d see in I vs. H. Think I''ve gotten hung up on this stone because of the nice IS/ASET and spread, but do still feel that VS2 is overkill.

Here''s a comparable one, H/SI2:

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-179719.htm


Item Code: AGS-8051407

. Carat: 1.523
. Depth %: 60.7
. Table %: 57
. Crown Angle: 34.7
. Crown %: 14.9
. Star : 53.1
. Pavilion Angle: 40.8
. Pavilion %: 43.1
. Lower Girdle %: 75.3
. Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
. Measurements: 7.43-7.46X4.52
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish: Ideal
. Symmetry: Ideal
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible
HCA: 1.4

I''ll have to ask WF about clarity, but am I mistaken in believing that this IS is inferior to the first I posted? I''m thinking the stone may tilted in the IS, hurting the apparent symmetry (AGS ideal, so not worried) but it seems a bit weak under the table. The table is a bit larger than I was hoping for, is this hurting in any way?


Thanks again everyone,
Dave

 

[Ellen]

I agree that it''s tilted, should be fine. And I personally don''t see anything wrong with a 57 table.

It would be a stunner, assuming it''s eyeclean.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I wouldn''t buy the first one unless you find out that the very thin girdle is just in one tiny section. I do not agree that VS2 is overkill, however. I think it is desirable to get as high as you can in all the 4 C''s. I might agree that VVS is overkill, but not VS. I''d certainly rather have an ACA, but I surely can see a lot of inclusions in the idealscope picture on the second stone. I''d have to see the actual magnified photo of that one to make a judgement. But I''d prefer an H Si1 or VS2 for an e-ring, personally.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Here''s a 1.53 I SI1 ACA that falls into your parameters (no picture yet, though)

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-179725.htm#

You can tell them you are interested in particular stones and they''ll try to get the pictures up for you and visually look at the stones to determine eye-cleanness.

 

[Carlotta]

I don''t think I would just "assume" a stone is tilted....have you asked to see the "hearts" picture.....?????? That might tell you more!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/6/2007 10:39:04 AM
Author: Carlotta
I don''t think I would just ''assume'' a stone is tilted....have you asked to see the ''hearts'' picture.....?????? That might tell you more!

That stone was an ACA and AGS0, so it would have an excellent idealscope and ideal numbers.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/6/2007 10:39:04 AM
Author: Carlotta
I don''t think I would just ''assume'' a stone is tilted....have you asked to see the ''hearts'' picture.....?????? That might tell you more!

Carlotta, I have seen a few like this, including one from a set of studs I bought from them. I asked if it was tilted, and was told yes, it was. This has also been confirmed to me on IS''s like this by strm and John Q.

And as ds said, it''s an ACA, which wouldn''t get that title if it wasn''t right.