Really need an opinion

[wushah]

First, let me just say thanks in advance. It''s funny. When you buy a ring, you do so much research, the pressure builds, and then you think you''ve selected your ring...and then someone shows you a a viable alternative which just throws you off. That being said, here are my 2 choices. Please let me know what you think.

Diamond #1

Price- 21,511
carat- 1.90
Cut- Ideal
Color- F
Clarity- VS2
Depth 61.6%
Table- 57%
Symmetry- Very good
Polish- Excellent
Girdle- medium to slightly thick
Culet- none
Flourescence- none
Crown angle- 34
Pavillion angle- 41

Holloway Cut Advisor

Light return- Excellent
Fire- Excellent
Scintillation- Very good
Spread- Very Good
Total visual performance- 1.5 within TIC (I don''t know what this means) range


Diamond #2

Price- 22,272
Carat- 2.01
Cut- Ideal
Color- F
Clarity- VS2
Depth- 62.6
Table- 58
Symmetry- Excellent
polish- Excellent
Girdle- med to slightly thick
Culet- None
Flourescence- None
Crown angle- 35.5
Pavillion angle- 41.1

HCA analysis

Light return- Good
Fire- Good
Scintillation- Good
Spread- Very good
Total visual performance 4.6- good, only if price is your main criterion (what does this mean)


So which stone do I go with?

Thanks again.

 

[John P]

I''d need more than averaged numbers to make a decisive prediction. From the basics you have provided though, #1 appears more promising in terms of overall performance. The crown/pavilion combination on #2 combine to make it a bit deep so it will have less spread than a supremely cut 2ct round (how do its mm dimensions compare to the 1.90?), and the table is not small enough to give it the abundance of fire in performance qualities which may be worth a bit of trade-off in that spread.

What lab graded the diamonds and are they both AGS Ideal, or "ideal" according to the seller? Any ideal-scope or ASET images?

 

[MrsChil]

I''m not an expert at round brilliants, however the first one comes up Excellent in the HCA (Holloway Cut Adviser) and the 2nd is only Good. Here is the link so you can see what I''m talking about You can just plug in the numbers for each stone and it will give you a grading result.

Holloway Cut Adviser

Good Luck! I''m sure there are a lot of people that will chime in

 

[wushah]

John,

These are GIA graded stones if that is what you mean. The dimensions (I believe that is what you were asking) are as follows:

#1 7.93 x 7.98 x 4.90 mm


#2 8.03 x 8.06 x 5.04 mm



So, the first stone was ideal cut, excellent polish, very good symmetry and had the better HCA. This one was 1.9 carats.

The second stone was also ideal cut, excellent polish, excellent symmetry, but had what seems like lesser performance. This one was 2.01 carats.

 

[wushah]

Any other opinions? Having a hard time choosing. LOL.

 

[Diamond Explorer]

Well It depends how much it means to have a true 2ct diamond. The first diamond is better optomized for brilliance strictly by the proportions. But the symmetry and polish are both excellent on the 2ct and I bet it looks pretty good too. They would probably look about the same size.

The choice would depend on whether you prefer a true 2ct that has slight compromises on cut, or a better cut 1.90 that would probably have a bight more brilliance.

 

[wushah]

Diamond Explorer,

That''s exactly my dilemma. I haven''t seen either in person as they are from Blue Nile. I guess my question for those that have seen the difference in brilliance from good to excellent is, "how noticeable is that difference?". Excellent brilliance is 2 grades higher than good, so is that very noticeable? Is there really that much more "fire"?

 

[John P]

Date: 4/2/2009 7:28:47 PM
Author: wushah

John,

These are GIA graded stones if that is what you mean. The dimensions (I believe that is what you were asking) are as follows:

#1 7.93 x 7.98 x 4.90 mm
#2 8.03 x 8.06 x 5.04 mm

So, the first stone was ideal cut, excellent polish, very good symmetry and had the better HCA. This one was 1.9 carats.

The second stone was also ideal cut, excellent polish, excellent symmetry, but had what seems like lesser performance. This one was 2.01 carats.

Hi again Wushah

Thanks for the info. Yes, exactly what I was asking.

Firstk GIA does not use the term "Ideal," so that label was assigned by the seller.

Going by the basic numbers they could both receive GIA''s "Excellent" proportions grade. While #1 could also be a candidate for AGS Ideal light performance #2 is predicted as AGS4 - due to the c/p angles I referenced earlier.

A 2ct diamond of what I''d consider optimum cut would face up closer to 2.20 mm than 2.00 mm.

Another question: You gave #2''s pavilion angle as 41.1. GIA rounds PA numbers on its reports to the nearest 0.2, so did that 41.1 figure come from a separate report or scan?

 

[John P]

Date: 4/2/2009 8:13:27 PM
Author: Diamond Explorer
Well It depends how much it means to have a true 2ct diamond. The first diamond is better optomized for brilliance strictly by the proportions. But the symmetry and polish are both excellent on the 2ct and I bet it looks pretty good too. They would probably look about the same size.

The choice would depend on whether you prefer a true 2ct that has slight compromises on cut, or a better cut 1.90 that would probably have a bight more brilliance.

Hi DE.

I've enjoyed seeing your contributions lately - welcome and it's nice to have another experienced pro aboard.

With that said I'm going to voice an an alternate opinion. While it's possible that the 2.01 diamond could look pretty good in many lighting situations, particularly where there is lots of light, the 1.90 has the edge when you consider the broadest range of possible conditions; simply because it's angle combination returns more of the light entering the crown to the viewer's eyes.

I've modeled both combinations below. First I need to explain that these are 'perfect' wireframe simulations - impossible in real life - but they are reliable for demonstrating the amount of intense light returned under the table for a 57/41.0/34.0 combination (left) versus the leakage in that area for a 58/41.1/35.5 combination (right). Of course actual cut precision, brillianteering and details of the minor facets will influence the actual ASET images for these diamonds. That's why we ask for actual images - especially when splitting hairs - but in this case what I'm referring to can be seen using basic numbers.

 

[wushah]

Thanks guys. John, awesome graphic. Really impressive. I am looking at 2 more stones.

Here is the 3rd one.

Carat weight: 2.03

Cut: Ideal

Color: F

Clarity: VS2

Depth %: 61.9%

Table %: 54%

Symmetry: Ideal

Polish: Ideal

Girdle: Medium to thick

Culet: None

Fluorescence: Negligible

Measurements: 8.14 x 8.16 x 5.05 mm

Crown angle- 34.1

Pavillion angle: 40.8


Thoughts?

 

[John P]

Date: 4/2/2009 9:50:23 PM
Author: wushah
Thanks guys. John, awesome graphic. Really impressive. I am looking at 2 more stones.

Here is the 3rd one.

Carat weight: 2.03
Cut: Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Depth %: 61.9%
Table %: 54%
Symmetry: Ideal
Polish: Ideal
Girdle: Medium to thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 8.14 x 8.16 x 5.05 mm
Crown angle- 34.1
Pavillion angle: 40.8

Thoughts?

You're welcome Wushah. I like the basic numbers on this best of the three you've put forward and it faces up like a 2ct should.

I presume this one is graded by AGS since it lists Ideal polish & symmetry and because I recognize a long-time glitch Blue Nile has had in their software... GIA and AGS treat girdle measurements differently (GIA measures at the 16 thinnest positions and AGS measured thinnest and thickest places everywhere along the girdle). AGS ranges will naturally be wider than GIA's but Blue Nile's computer applies GIA's system to all the uploaded reports, causing verbal descriptors to be inaccurate for AGS diamonds (ergo "medium to thick" in this case).

An AGS report with the "Ideal" light performance pedigree is a good indication of overall performance.

 

[Diamond Explorer]

Date: 4/2/2009 10:53:18 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 4/2/2009 9:50:23 PM

Author: wushah

Thanks guys. John, awesome graphic. Really impressive. I am looking at 2 more stones.


Here is the 3rd one.


Carat weight: 2.03

Cut: Ideal

Color: F

Clarity: VS2

Depth %: 61.9%

Table %: 54%

Symmetry: Ideal

Polish: Ideal

Girdle: Medium to thick

Culet: None

Fluorescence: Negligible

Measurements: 8.14 x 8.16 x 5.05 mm

Crown angle- 34.1

Pavillion angle: 40.8


Thoughts?

You're welcome Wushah. I like the basic numbers on this best of the three you've put forward and it faces up like a 2ct should.


I presume this one is graded by AGS since it lists Ideal polish & symmetry and because I recognize a long-time glitch Blue Nile has had in their software... GIA and AGS treat girdle measurements differently (GIA measures at the 16 thinnest positions and AGS measured thinnest and thickest places everywhere along the girdle). AGS ranges will naturally be wider than GIA's but Blue Nile's computer applies GIA's system to all the uploaded reports, causing verbal descriptors to be inaccurate for AGS diamonds (ergo 'medium to thick' in this case).


An AGS report with the 'Ideal' light performance pedigree is a good indication of overall performance.

You are right John, That third one is more optimal for what fine 2ct should look like.

I would be surprised if the price wasn't higher.

 

[John P]

Date: 4/2/2009 11:41:57 PM
Author: Diamond Explorer

You are right John, That third one is more optimal for what fine 2ct should look like.

I would be surprised if the price wasn't higher.

I expect you're right. The AGS Ideal report/pedigree will be priced a bit higher to begin with as will the promising basic numbers, regardless of source.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/2/2009 8:45:21 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 4/2/2009 7:28:47 PM
Author: wushah

John,

These are GIA graded stones if that is what you mean. The dimensions (I believe that is what you were asking) are as follows:

#1 7.93 x 7.98 x 4.90 mm
#2 8.03 x 8.06 x 5.04 mm

So, the first stone was ideal cut, excellent polish, very good symmetry and had the better HCA. This one was 1.9 carats.

The second stone was also ideal cut, excellent polish, excellent symmetry, but had what seems like lesser performance. This one was 2.01 carats.

Hi again Wushah

Thanks for the info. Yes, exactly what I was asking.

Firstk GIA does not use the term 'Ideal,' so that label was assigned by the seller.

Going by the basic numbers they could both receive GIA's 'Excellent' proportions grade. While #1 could also be a candidate for AGS Ideal light performance #2 is predicted as AGS4 - due to the c/p angles I referenced earlier.

A 2ct diamond of what I'd consider optimum cut would face up closer to 2.20 mm than 2.00 mm.

Another question: You gave #2's pavilion angle as 41.1. GIA rounds PA numbers on its reports to the nearest 0.2, so did that 41.1 figure come from a separate report or scan?

Hey Sir J, I think there might be a typo there? 2ct = 8.2mm than 8mm, rather than 2.20/2mm?

 

[John P]

Date: 4/3/2009 4:38:13 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/2/2009 8:45:21 PM
Author: John Pollard

A 2ct diamond of what I''d consider optimum cut would face up closer to 2.20 mm than 2.00 mm.

Hey Sir J, I think there might be a typo there? 2ct = 8.2mm than 8mm, rather than 2.20/2mm?

Hey Lady L, yes and thanks! Too many twos on the brain.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/3/2009 9:12:11 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 4/3/2009 4:38:13 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/2/2009 8:45:21 PM
Author: John Pollard

A 2ct diamond of what I'd consider optimum cut would face up closer to 2.20 mm than 2.00 mm.

Hey Sir J, I think there might be a typo there? 2ct = 8.2mm than 8mm, rather than 2.20/2mm?

Hey Lady L, yes and thanks! Too many twos on the brain.

No worries Monsieur!