Round briliant opinions needed

[Carats]

1.85 J Si1

Excellent Cut
7.83 - 7.87x4.92 mm

Polish: Excellent
Sym: Excellent
Fluoro: None

Table: 55%
Depth: 62.7%
Crown Anlge: 35
Pavillion Angle: 41

What does everyone think? The J color concerns me but it seems like a great buy given the size. Also HCA rates it as a 2.4 - dont know if I should be concerned about that. Also, the inclusions are very tiny...haven't seen it in person though, as it is online.


I also have this one as an option as well:
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3307/

 

[Lorelei]

Hi Carats,

Looks promising, an Idealscope image would be very useful here, see if the vendor can supply you with one. A J with a great cut will face up plenty white for most people, make sure your vendor has a good return policy in case, but many are delighted with their J's once they get them! Also a Sarin report would give more of an idea of the angles which again the vendor might be able to do, as GIA rounds them. Also check carefully with the vendor that the SI1 is eyeclean and that your definitions of this match.

The second GOG diamond is a beauty!!!

 

[Carats]

Its with whiteflash and they said they could provide all that info once they bring the diamond inhouse - if they say its a great diamond and we dont like it we have to shell out$65 to send the diamond back. i want to make sure its a great option before i go down this route...

what did you think about the second one in comparison? its much smaller but i''m wondering if the reason the prices are similar is a difference in quality...

 

[Lorelei]

The colour grade will make the second more expensive as it is a grade higher, plus being an AGS0 too. The GOG diamond being in house has had all the analysis done for you ( which is nice but not essential due to the grading report and scores) so you know it is a safe choice, the WF diamond not being in house is a relatively unknown quantity, but if you don't mind paying to have it called in then might be worth further investigation if you want to go a little heavier on the caratage. However WF are experts and can advise you accordingly if you call the diamond in.

Also the GOG diamond has the lifetime upgrade policy which the WF diamond not being in house may not have, so if you wanted to upgrade in future, then the GOG is the one to consider, just a thought.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The J stone is too deep. You generally want the depth to be at 62.3 or less, and preferably 60-62. It is not as good a cut as the I color stone is.

(ETA: I just read on another thread that the 35, 41 angles would qualify the stone as an AGS1, not AGS0)

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/11/2007 5:51:24 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
The J stone is too deep. You generally want the depth to be at 62.3 or less, and preferably 60-62. It is not as good a cut as the I color stone is.

That is subject to preference, if everything else is good then it may be worth consideration, however the GOG diamond is the winner in this case.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 7/11/2007 5:53:38 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 7/11/2007 5:51:24 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
The J stone is too deep. You generally want the depth to be at 62.3 or less, and preferably 60-62. It is not as good a cut as the I color stone is.

That is subject to preference, if everything else is good then it may be worth consideration, however the GOG diamond is the winner in this case.

I just meant it would not be considered AGS0, so not as well cut according to AGS. Certainly there are good cut stones that some people prefer!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/11/2007 5:55:23 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 7/11/2007 5:53:38 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 7/11/2007 5:51:24 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
The J stone is too deep. You generally want the depth to be at 62.3 or less, and preferably 60-62. It is not as good a cut as the I color stone is.

That is subject to preference, if everything else is good then it may be worth consideration, however the GOG diamond is the winner in this case.

I just meant it would not be considered AGS0, so not as well cut according to AGS. Certainly there are good cut stones that some people prefer!

Gotcha!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/11/2007 4:56:12 PM
Author: Carats
Its with whiteflash and they said they could provide all that info once they bring the diamond inhouse - if they say its a great diamond and we dont like it we have to shell out$65 to send the diamond back. i want to make sure its a great option before i go down this route...

what did you think about the second one in comparison? its much smaller but i'm wondering if the reason the prices are similar is a difference in quality...

Hey Carats, a quick clarification: You'd only be responsible for the call-in fee if the diamond arrived here, passed all of our tests & analysis, we recommended it and you decided to decline it. If it came in and it did not meet our standards/performance measures you'd not need to pay a thing and we'd continue to help you search.

By the way Lorelei, any diamond we recommend is eligible for trade-up as long as it's GIA/AGS graded.

 

[kcoursolle]

The first stone you suggested looks promising, but I''m not terribly fond of the 35/41 angle and the slightly high depth. The second stone...looks FANTASTIC!!! I''d definitely go for the GOG stone. The images look beautiful, the cut specs are nice, and GOG comes with great service and upgrade policies.

 

[Carats]

Date: 7/11/2007 6:54:37 PM
Author: kcoursolle
The first stone you suggested looks promising, but I''m not terribly fond of the 35/41 angle and the slightly high depth. The second stone...looks FANTASTIC!!! I''d definitely go for the GOG stone. The images look beautiful, the cut specs are nice, and GOG comes with great service and upgrade policies.

Ahh, I know, such a hard decision! I''m completely torn between the quality/cut of the GOG stone and the size of the other stone - and the fact that I haven''t seen either one in person doesn''t help one bit! For those that are experienced out there, how would you say the sparkliness and fire of these stones differ? If there is a huge difference, then i''ll go with the smaller stone. If there isn''t a noticeable difference then I would really prefer to go with the 1.8 carat. Its a really hard decision when you base everything on numbers, but then again, I guess the numbers tell the story that your eyes will eventually see...

 

[shel]

Date: 7/11/2007 5:51:24 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
The J stone is too deep. You generally want the depth to be at 62.3 or less, and preferably 60-62. It is not as good a cut as the I color stone is.


(ETA: I just read on another thread that the 35, 41 angles would qualify the stone as an AGS1, not AGS0)

Actually, the person in that thread corrected himself and said that 35/41 would be an AGS0

 

[Carats]

Okay in comparing the diamonds, there is only a .5 millimeter difference in face up size - does this actually amount to a lot visually? If not, then it doesnt make sense to go with the 1.85.

 

[Carats]

While we are in the 1.5 range, how does this look?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=1027399

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 7/11/2007 9:40:24 PM
Author: shel

Date: 7/11/2007 5:51:24 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
The J stone is too deep. You generally want the depth to be at 62.3 or less, and preferably 60-62. It is not as good a cut as the I color stone is.


(ETA: I just read on another thread that the 35, 41 angles would qualify the stone as an AGS1, not AGS0)

Actually, the person in that thread corrected himself and said that 35/41 would be an AGS0

Thank you SO much for alerting me to this, Shel!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/11/2007 10:22:32 PM
Author: Carats

Okay in comparing the diamonds, there is only a .5 millimeter difference in face up size - does this actually amount to a lot visually? If not, then it doesnt make sense to go with the 1.85.

Hey Carats, I didn’t look at the diamond you were considering until I saw KCoursolle's comments. I thought it strange that we recommended that option when you're looking in the 1.5 range.

I see an in-house 1.58 I SI1 was first suggested to you - but you expressed a desire for more ct weight (?). If you're back in the 1.50 range Sheerah's original suggestion is more apples to apples and in a cut class we prefer. I'm not sure how the 1.85 would pan out (the GIA report is rounded) but the depth makes me wary. Sorry for any confusion and I hope this is helpful.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

In fact, WF has some beautiful selections in the 1.5 I VS2-SI1 category:

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-179725.htm (take off 5% on ACA''s for PS/wire discount)

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-179720.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-311795.htm#

I''d rather have any of these over that J stone.

 

[Lorelei]

Thanks for that John

Of course an ACA is always going to be a great choice compared to many other diamonds and the in house one too from WF, nice selections DiamondSeeker

 

[Carats]

Date: 7/12/2007 12:01:42 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 7/11/2007 10:22:32 PM
Author: Carats

Okay in comparing the diamonds, there is only a .5 millimeter difference in face up size - does this actually amount to a lot visually? If not, then it doesnt make sense to go with the 1.85.

Hey Carats, I didn’t look at the diamond you were considering until I saw KCoursolle''s comments. I thought it strange that we recommended that option when you''re looking in the 1.5 range.

I see an in-house 1.58 I SI1 was first suggested to you - but you expressed a desire for more ct weight (?). If you''re back in the 1.50 range Sheerah''s original suggestion is more apples to apples and in a cut class we prefer. I''m not sure how the 1.85 would pan out (the GIA report is rounded) but the depth makes me wary. Sorry for any confusion and I hope this is helpful.

Hey JOhn,
yes, i did want more carat weight. I was hoping for around 1.7 - i guess its a very fine line because I want to play a good balance between getting the finest cut but not paying so much that I don''t have any room for increased weight. Does that make sense?
Our total budget with the setting is 10k - if i go with a smaller diamond (1.5 carats) then I want to buy a really nice, but pricey setting to compensate for the stone. If I go with a 1.8 then I would feel comfortable with a more simpler setting. So the budget is a little complicated in that sense.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/12/2007 8:11:07 AM
Author: Carats

Date: 7/12/2007 12:01:42 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 7/11/2007 10:22:32 PM
Author: Carats

Okay in comparing the diamonds, there is only a .5 millimeter difference in face up size - does this actually amount to a lot visually? If not, then it doesnt make sense to go with the 1.85.

Hey Carats, I didn’t look at the diamond you were considering until I saw KCoursolle''s comments. I thought it strange that we recommended that option when you''re looking in the 1.5 range.

I see an in-house 1.58 I SI1 was first suggested to you - but you expressed a desire for more ct weight (?). If you''re back in the 1.50 range Sheerah''s original suggestion is more apples to apples and in a cut class we prefer. I''m not sure how the 1.85 would pan out (the GIA report is rounded) but the depth makes me wary. Sorry for any confusion and I hope this is helpful.

Hey JOhn,
yes, i did want more carat weight. I was hoping for around 1.7 - i guess its a very fine line because I want to play a good balance between getting the finest cut but not paying so much that I don''t have any room for increased weight. Does that make sense?
Our total budget with the setting is 10k - if i go with a smaller diamond (1.5 carats) then I want to buy a really nice, but pricey setting to compensate for the stone. If I go with a 1.8 then I would feel comfortable with a more simpler setting. So the budget is a little complicated in that sense.

Thanks for explaining Carats. I saw the disparity and wanted to be sure you were getting relevant info from our side, especially since your rep will be out the rest of the week. You''re in good hands on PS - happy hunting.

 

[kcoursolle]

If you want to max out on size, here is a possibility: http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=130&item=866265 I'm not sure those black inclusions in the middle would be eye clean though. Here's another one, with similar ugly inclusions: http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=130&item=1059612

I think I'd probably go for one of the 1.5ish I colored stones from either GOG or WF. They are really well cut and stunning and are cleaner than the above linked stones. The size difference might be noticeable comparing the two stones side by side, but I doubt it would be noticeable otherwise.