Reserved a round ACA. Need help please!

[lucky177]

Hello,
I finally am making the purchase and put a diamond on reserve and am looking at 2 others!

Here are the three stones:

0.504 ct I VS2 Whiteflash ACA
Report: AGS
. Shape: Whiteflash ACA
. Carat: 0.504
. Depth %: 61.2
. Table %: 57
. Crown Angle: 34.8
. Crown %: 15
. Star : 52
. Pavilion Angle: 40.8
. Pavilion %: 43
. Lower Girdle %: 77
. Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
. Measurements: 5.12-5.15X3.14
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish: Ideal
. Symmetry: Ideal
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible

 

[lucky177]

Ideal Scope:

 

[lucky177]

ASET

 

[lucky177]

SARIN

 

[lucky177]

Hearts:

 

[kenny]

You cannot go wrong with an ACA.

Just pick the combination of color, clarity and size you are most comfortable with.

 

[lucky177]

AND the AGS Report

edit: link to image of report
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5126/ciags10371201.jpg

 

[lucky177]

Sorry for posting a billiom images...

Here are the other two diamonds I was looking at:

0.563 ct H VS2 Premium Select Round
http://www.whiteflash.com/premium_select_round/Premium-Select-Round-cut-diamond-1987281.htm#

and

0.542 ct G SI1 Round Ideal Cut
http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2173516.htm#

I assume that the ACA will be fine, but what is your opinion on the other two?
Would it be worth it to jump up .05 carats to the 1st or 2nd one?
All three of these were below 2 on the HCA.

 

[AshNZ]

The first one is much better then the 2nd and 3rd. But it is an I color.
What about this: http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/Whiteflash-ACA-cut-diamond-2183235.htm
If that is eye-clean (call them) it should fit your bill.


Your 3rd example is why HCA needs to be used with caution. Look at the Idealscope image, this stone is WAY off center. HCA just uses the averages, which is fine if the deviation is minimal...

Ash

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/2/2009 3:20:08 PM
Author: AshNZ


The first one is much better then the 2nd and 3rd. But it is an I color.
What about this: http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/Whiteflash-ACA-cut-diamond-2183235.htm
If that is eye-clean (call them) it should fit your bill.


Your 3rd example is why HCA needs to be used with caution. Look at the Idealscope image, this stone is WAY off center. HCA just uses the averages, which is fine if the deviation is minimal...

Ash

I disagree, the stone is not way off centre, I think you are referring to the optical symmetry pattern and it is quite possible the diamond was tilted in the image or the optical symmetry is very slightly off but it is still a very fine diamond, nothing wrong with it at all.

Lucky, these could all be excellent choices, it depends on your priorities, whether you would rather have the pedigree of the ACA or one of the other non ACA diamonds, any of them could be an excellent choice. Check the third diamond is eyeclean by asking Whiteflash if you are considering this one for purchase.

 

[AshNZ]

It''s off center in the ASET too. The sarin shows angles are not tight.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/2/2009 3:35:33 PM
Author: AshNZ
It''s off center in the ASET too. The sarin shows angles are not tight.

Your off centering is so incredibly slight I assure you it is not going to make any difference to the beauty of the stone, its a great diamond. What you are referring to again is the optical symmetry of the stone, this does not directly relate to the beauty or performance of a diamond, also some Sarin variance is normal. The diamond also has an AGS0 cut grade with excellent images. If you want what to you is a perfect cut thats fine but really in this case in my opinion, you are making an issue out of something which isn''t an issue.

 

[haagen_dazs]

Date: 11/2/2009 3:35:33 PM
Author: AshNZ
It''s off center in the ASET too. The sarin shows angles are not tight.

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2173516.htm#

the pavilion angles deviate by 0.8 degress (quite alot)

one interesting thing i noted is that
the angle goes all the way to 41.4 degrees

thats above the 41.1 or 41.2 threshold

however i do not see any leakage in the IS image.
there should be visible leakage in at least the pavilion that had a recordingof 41.4 degree

i just sometimes wonder if Idealsope photos are really true photos of what one sees in real life as opposed to "tweaked" images in photoshop

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/2/2009 4:24:50 PM
Author: haagen_dazs

Date: 11/2/2009 3:35:33 PM
Author: AshNZ
It''s off center in the ASET too. The sarin shows angles are not tight.

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2173516.htm#

the pavilion angles deviate by 0.8 degress (quite alot)

one interesting thing i noted is that
the angle goes all the way to 41.4 degrees

thats above the 41.1 or 41.2 threshold

however i do not see any leakage in the IS image.
there should be visible leakage in at least the pavilion that had a recordingof 41.4 degree

i just sometimes wonder if Idealsope photos are really true photos of what one sees in real life as opposed to ''tweaked'' images in photoshop

Exactly - and that is what matters. Also WF do not to the best of my knowledge '' tweak'' or doctor their images.

 

[lucky177]

Last one isn't eyeclean, so that rules that one out.

So, it is between the ACA (0.504 ct I VS2 Whiteflash ACA) and the second one (0.563 ct H VS2 Premium Select Round)
To me (who doesn't know how to read IS well) the light leakage looks the same, but the non ACA PremiumSelect seems to have the markings on it.
What are those marks? Is the cut of the ACA better than the PremiumSelect (PS) I have here? I want the best cut possible, and if the PS is just as good it seems like a better option because it has better color and is larger

The ACA IS is in this post, the PremiumSelect will be in next

 

[lucky177]

0.563 ct H VS2 Premium Select Round

 

[Allison D.]

Lucky, the marks you''ve circled aren''t relate to cut at all; they''re the inclusions. While it''s common to see inclusions in IS and ASET images due to the lighting used and the magnification, this doesn''t have any bearing on whether the stone is eyeclean or not in real life. As long as your consultant has confirmed the stone is eyeclean under normal viewing conditions (and has presumably provided you with our definition for eyeclean), there is no cause for concern there. You''ve picked two really nice stones.

Haagen Daaz, the 41.4 pavilion angle on the third stone wouldn''t automatically suggest leakage should be visible in the Idealscope. The key is the relationship between the corresponding crown and pavilion facets, not just the pavilion angle alone. You''ll notice there is a variance in the crown angles, too; as long as each pavilion facet is paired with the proper complimentary crown facet, there shouldn''t be (and isn''t) leakage in the idealscope.

Speaking for ourselves, I can assure you that the our idealscope images are indeed true photos (not photoshopped) taken of each stone. I know this is true for many of our peers here as well. It''s most likely that the reason you don''t see much variance is that most of us commit our inventory capital to top-shelf goods, so IS images are fairly predictable.

 

[lucky177]

Thanks a lot for the help everybody! I narrowed it down to the previous two mentioned and will post here by Wednesday which one I went with. Thanks again for the help, I would be lost without it

 

[stone-cold11]

yap, inclusions in the IS image.

Good luck.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 11/2/2009 4:24:50 PM
Author: haagen_dazs

Date: 11/2/2009 3:35:33 PM

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2173516.htm#

the pavilion angles deviate by 0.8 degress (quite alot)

one interesting thing i noted is that

the angle goes all the way to 41.4 degrees

thats above the 41.1 or 41.2 threshold

however i do not see any leakage in the IS image.

there should be visible leakage in at least the pavilion that had a recordingof 41.4 degree

i just sometimes wonder if Idealsope photos are really true photos of what one sees in real life as opposed to ''tweaked'' images in photoshop

It is the actual IS image. Think about complementary angles. At PA 41.4, if the crown is at the lower end of the angles too at 33.3, and coupled with a good lower half, there will be no leakage. The IS is showing that, meaning the cutter knows what he is doing with the stone.

 

[lucky177]

Last question...

Does everyone agree that both the ACA posted in the first image and the Premium Select here would both be great stones? Would anyone suggest one over the other, with cut being the most important factor and why?

 

[brellymom]

Date: 11/2/2009 8:40:29 PM
Author: Allison D.
Lucky, the marks you''ve circled aren''t relate to cut at all; they''re the inclusions. While it''s common to see inclusions in IS and ASET images due to the lighting used and the magnification, this doesn''t have any bearing on whether the stone is eyeclean or not in real life. As long as your consultant has confirmed the stone is eyeclean under normal viewing conditions (and has presumably provided you with our definition for eyeclean), there is no cause for concern there. You''ve picked two really nice stones.

Haagen Daaz, the 41.4 pavilion angle on the third stone wouldn''t automatically suggest leakage should be visible in the Idealscope. The key is the relationship between the corresponding crown and pavilion facets, not just the pavilion angle alone. You''ll notice there is a variance in the crown angles, too; as long as each pavilion facet is paired with the proper complimentary crown facet, there shouldn''t be (and isn''t) leakage in the idealscope.

Speaking for ourselves, I can assure you that the our idealscope images are indeed true photos (not photoshopped) taken of each stone. I know this is true for many of our peers here as well. It''s most likely that the reason you don''t see much variance is that most of us commit our inventory capital to top-shelf goods, so IS images are fairly predictable.

I''ve seen this referred to before and find it interesting. For those of us purchasing from B&M, is there a "cheatsheet" or formula available that we could use when looking at stats on-site? I have the various ranges that have been published, but they don''t discuss the interpllay between these numbers. Thanks much.

 

[stone-cold11]

yap, no reason not to choose the Premium select over the ACA unless you are looking for a H&A stone.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 11/3/2009 8:19:06 AM
Author: brellymom

I''ve seen this referred to before and find it interesting. For those of us purchasing from B&M, is there a ''cheatsheet'' or formula available that we could use when looking at stats on-site? I have the various ranges that have been published, but they don''t discuss the interpllay between these numbers. Thanks much.

Inverse relationship. low crown angle coupled with high pavilion angle and high crown angle coupled with low pavilion angle.

Use the cut adviser if you do not want to think to much.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/3/2009 8:46:32 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 11/3/2009 8:19:06 AM
Author: brellymom

I''ve seen this referred to before and find it interesting. For those of us purchasing from B&M, is there a ''cheatsheet'' or formula available that we could use when looking at stats on-site? I have the various ranges that have been published, but they don''t discuss the interpllay between these numbers. Thanks much.

Yes there is a cheat sheet, see below. Also be careful when balancing crown and pavilion angles if you are going much over 41 degrees as leakage can occur, you don''t want a much shallower crown angle along with a very steep pavilion angle even if the HCA score is reasonable as other undesirable issues can occur.

depth - 60 - 62% - although my personal preference is to 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!

As the above implies, configurations depend on each other. A little give here can still work with a little take there.

From expert John Pollard.

With that said, here''s a "Cliff''s Notes" for staying near Tolkowsky/ideal angles with GIA reports (their numbers are rounded): A crown angle of 34.0, 34.5 or 35.0 is usually safe with a 40.8 pavilion angle. If pavilion angle = 40.6 lean toward a 34.5-35.0 crown. If pavilion angle = 41 lean toward a 34.0-34.5 crown.

GIA "EX" in cut is great at its heart, but it ranges a bit wider than some people prefer, particularly in deep combinations (pavilion > 41 with crown > 35).

 

[lucky177]

Quick question about HCA. The ACA diamond on the first post that I am fairly certain I will get tomorrow scored a 1.8. HCA should only be used to eliminate diamonds by not looking at ones above 2 correct? It doesn''t matter that it is close to 2?

 

[stone-cold11]

does not matter when IS/ASET image is present. scores up to 3 can still have good IS/ASET image.

 

[yssie]

I rather think the HCA is best used as a first-round elimination tool. Once you've got ASET and IS images (which show you your actual live performance) you don't need the HCA, which generalizes and assumes to hypothesize your potential performance.

The ACAs are cut to a very strict standard - you really can't go wrong.

And to answer your question - nothing wrong with a 1.8, or a 1.9, or even a 2.5, if the angles are sweet and the images confirm it.

 

[lucky177]

That''s great to hear. All I have to do is call and confirm and the whole thing is done!!!!!!!!!!!

Besides waiting to propose, which I will go crazy during...

 

[stone-cold11]

yap, always the same.