Shallower Crown - .9 HCA

[kmoro]

@Lindsay Loo ... just a note about buying the diamond and setting at the same place ....

I totally “hear” you when you say you would prefer to get both at the same place ... but .... if you really want to get the diamond you want in the setting you want, I think that it is not much more effort and would encourage you to buy the setting you want and have it sent to the vendor that has the diamond you want. By shipping the setting instead of the diamond, you ship the less expensive item (most times), and the diamond vendor will set the diamond, so if the diamond gets damaged during setting, there are no issues getting the diamond replaced.

It really is not as much hassle as you may think. You can even get the setting vendor to send the setting directly to the diamond vendor (if you don’t want to see and try on the setting first), and so really it is two online purchases and a bit of extra communication with the vendors ... that’s all the extra effort involved, and you get what you want.

Also, do not assume that the setting on the diamond vendor’s site are the only ones they can provide. If you find a designer setting and it is not listed with the diamond vendor, if you ask, sometimes the diamond vendor can source the same setting.

I do hope you steer away from the shallow crown diamond. Even if is is ok, you can do better. I think you got some examples of GIA rounding ... consider the crown angle may be lower than 32.5 in some places, although with the reported crown percentage, it is probably not that bad. It is hard when dealing with personal jewellers, but remind yourself that you owe him nothing ... because you don’t. This is business, and having spent time on a failed sale is just part of business. As long as you were seriously looking in the first place, you have not wasted the jeweller’s time ... if anything, he has wasted yours by not providing a superior diamond. It’s your money and you will have to live with the diamond. I doubt the jeweller would lose one second of sleep over this, lol.

Good luck! And please remember to post pictures for us to drool over!

 

[bmfang]

While I’m open to all super ideal vendors, BGD has a special place in my heart given that my wife’s push presents were all from there (the three diamonds and settings in my avatar pic).

No qualms about QC from me about the martini settings and the Freya solitaire. Then again, this was back in late 2016/early 2017 so things may have changed.

@Lindsay Loo , if you have a setting in mind or you want to re-use your current one, I’d be inclined to send the setting to BGD for them to set the stone. In the rare event of chipping the stone while setting, liability then should rest on BGD. If you get your family jeweller to do the setting, you’re up for it instead.

 

[Lindsay Loo]

That’s a good idea. Would I just call BGD customer service to set that up? Didn’t make it to my jeweler today but tomorrow for sure. I’m in love with the setting I have so would prefer to keep it.

 

[bmfang]

That’s a good idea. Would I just call BGD customer service to set that up? Didn’t make it to my jeweler today but tomorrow for sure. I’m in love with the setting I have so would prefer to keep it.

I would. If you are purchasing this, make contact via live chat or phone call and explain to them what you want to do.

Of course, you’d have to ensure your current setting is sans current diamond before you sent it to BGD.

One of the other US based PS-ers might give you further guidance about what to do re: insuring your current setting on the trip to BGD.

 

[TreeScientist]

@Lindsay Loo, what type of setting do you have? Solitaire? Halo? Just want to make sure that the new diamond will fit in your current setting. The diameter of the BDG stone you're looking at is about .2mm smaller than your current .9 carat stone. This difference should be no problem for a solitaire setting. You typically have about +/-.5mm of "play" with solitaire settings, because it's easy to bend the prongs in or out to accommodate different sizes.

But that would be stretching the limit of tolerance for a halo setting, especially if it is a well done, tightly-fitting halo. At .2mm smaller, you may begin to see some gaps between the center diamond and halo stones.

If your current setting is not a prong-set solitaire (halo, three-stone, bezel, etc.) please check with your jeweler about what deviations in diameter from your current stone would be acceptable for your setting. Would hate for you to pick out a great diamond and then have it come out looking off in your setting.

 

[Lindsay Loo]

Yellow gold cathedral solitaire four prong. I’m still looking at some of these BGD settings too. Trying to find something that tapers in and is no wider than 2.5mm.

Think I’ll notice much difference in the size of the stone? Assuming ideal cut will shine brighter anyways

 

[TreeScientist]

Yellow gold cathedral solitaire four prong. I’m still looking at some of these BGD settings too. Trying to find something that tapers in and is no wider than 2.5mm.

Think I’ll notice much difference in the size of the stone? Assuming ideal cut will shine brighter anyways

In all likelihood, the BGD stone will not be "brighter." Well-cut stones with shallow crown angles like your current .9 carat stone will typically exhibit more brilliance (aka brightness). They're known as BICs, or brilliant ideal cuts. A stone with a higher crown angle like the BDG stone will have more of a balance between brilliance (white light return) and fire (flashes of colorful light), although it may go dark in certain lighting environments. There are some who prefer stones with shallow crowns because they like the white light return (brilliance/brightness). Others prefer more balanced stones that will exhibit more of the colorful flashes of dispersed light (fire). Then again, your current stone does not really have a shallow crown, because the table is also fairly small. So the only way to know for sure which is going to appear "brighter" is to see them both in person.

Hard to tell whether you'll be able to tell a difference. .2mm is right around the point where people can begin to tell a difference in size, although it will be a subtle size difference for sure.

 

[TreeScientist]

I mean, if you were asking me what stone I would choose (which I know you're not ), then I would pick this one in a heartbeat with your $5k budget:
https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/...-ags-c-104105166087#!prettyPhoto[gallery2]/2/

Nice spread at 6.1mm, a D/VS1, (IMO) perfect balance between crown and pavilion depth at 15.1% and 43.0%, and right at about $5k with the 10% off coupon. A little bit of crown painting, but at 2-3 degrees of crown painting I would actually consider it a positive. If you like bright stones, slight crown painting can make a stone appear brighter. More about painting and why it can actually be a positive if crown-only here:
https://www.pricescope.com/articles/visible_effects_painting_digging_superideal_diamonds

Then again, I like high-colored stones. If you want bright and white, cannot get whiter than a D.

 

[bmfang]

Great pick there @TreeScientist

The hearts image for that D is pretty much perfection.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi All,


GIA 2326627930
RB
6.21x6.23x3.93
.90CT

Table: 54%
Crown Angle: 32.5
Pavillion Angle: 40.8
Crown Height: 15%
Total Depth: 61.5%
Slightly Thick Faceted 3.5%
Cutlet: None

GIA rounds data - this stone has larger crown and pavilion angles than indicated by the rounded data.
It may go slightly darker if you can focus from less than 8 inches 20cm.

 

[headlight]

You’ve likely got a stone that is on the edge of “Brilliant Ideal Cut” and “Tolkowsky Ideal Cut” proportions. The cut off between BIC and TIC according to @Garry H (Cut Nut) is at the 32.5 degree crown angle. There is an inverse relationship between crown and pavilion angles. Your current stone is likely to have a 32.7 degree crown angle combined with a 40.8-40.9 degree pavilion angle (GIA rounds angles on their reports).

Tolkowsky’s original proportion set for stones did not include a girdle. Even now, there is a range of what is considered to be ideal cut proportions.

Unless GIA aren’t following their proportions system anymore, the 2009 GIA PGS for a 54% table indicates that this stone (32.5 CA/40.8 PA) is only GIA Very Good rather than GIA Excellent for cut. which makes the statement that it is GIA Excellent for cut on the report a little puzzling unless they are starting to grade stones on some degree of light performance now. Or that they are using Facetware to determine the cut grade. Verify this for yourself using this GIA article that contains the PGS:
https://www.diamondscreener.com/wp-...ence/booklet_cut_estimation_tables_lowres.pdf

AGS proportions system only rates this as AGS1 (Excellent) too.

@Karl_K, @John Pollard : Do either of you know whether GIA updated their proportions grading system recently?

That chart is still shown on GIA's website, and this particular stone just misses making EX... had the PA been 41 it would've

However, per the GIA Cut Grade Reference Chart, all the specs fall into the Excellent column which would yield an Excellent Cut per GIA system, however it does state that "Even if all of a diamond's parameters are within the limits for a particular grade, it might receive a lower cut grade when the parameters interact in a negative way to lessen a diamond's appearance". So I guess this is where the other chart comes into play. I guess irregardless of one way of assessing per GIA yields an EX and another a VG, it still got the Excellent for cut grade. It is my understanding that sometimes a call is made on the final grade based on visual evaluation and looking at all the factors as a whole. I guess here is where the rubber meets the road: The one "camp" that believes each stone should be judged on its own merit in conjunction with if the potential purchaser deems it attractive vs. the other "camp" that says you've got to have the numbers to ensure top performance which I guess is really a different thing than deeming it attractive - subjectivity vs. objective data. I guess we all have to decide for ourselves if a stone is appealing enough for oneself. Hard to define, and definitely hard to define on the internet. AGS0 grades are definitely an advantage for the online buyer in this regard!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

That chart is still shown on GIA's website, and this particular stone just misses making EX... had the PA been 41 it would've

However, per the GIA Cut Grade Reference Chart, all the specs fall into the Excellent column which would yield an Excellent Cut per GIA system, however it does state that "Even if all of a diamond's parameters are within the limits for a particular grade, it might receive a lower cut grade when the parameters interact in a negative way to lessen a diamond's appearance". So I guess this is where the other chart comes into play. I guess irregardless of one way of assessing per GIA yields an EX and another a VG, it still got the Excellent for cut grade. It is my understanding that sometimes a call is made on the final grade based on visual evaluation and looking at all the factors as a whole. I guess here is where the rubber meets the road: The one "camp" that believes each stone should be judged on its own merit in conjunction with if the potential purchaser deems it attractive vs. the other "camp" that says you've got to have the numbers to ensure top performance which I guess is really a different thing than deeming it attractive - subjectivity vs. objective data. I guess we all have to decide for ourselves if a stone is appealing enough for oneself. Hard to define, and definitely hard to define on the internet. AGS0 grades are definitely an advantage for the online buyer in this regard!

There is very little relationship between written GIA and GIA GTL actions. Try 64.2% depth for example in a XXX Excellent cut when all I have ever read 63% was the max allowable.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Some poor person will own this diamond and may never know the pleasure they missed out on.

 

[Dancing Fire]

There is very little relationship between written GIA and GIA GTL actions. Try 64.2% depth for example in a XXX Excellent cut when all I have ever read 63% was the max allowable.

Garry, . Is this the smallest 1ct in the world at 6.27mm in diameter? . What is the HCA on this stone?. 8?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry, . Is this the smallest 1ct in the world at 6.27mm in diameter? . What is the HCA on this stone?. 8?

You can do the HCA and LL DF
But how is this 65.1% - now that's what I call protecting your customers!

From wikipedia
"GIA's mission is to protect all buyers and sellers of gemstones by setting and maintaining the standards used to evaluate gemstone quality"

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Report will not post

 

[bmfang]

Report will not post

...

 

[Dancing Fire]

Report will not post

65.1% depth + out of round.. How can this stone be an Ex cut grade?

 

[gm89uk]

This is precisely why I love using gm89uk’s cut stats analyser.

ASET trumps stats though.

Glad you're still using it! Couldn't get it to work for this diamond until I realised the depth is 3.83 on the report not 3.93. Seems to think the crown is higher than 32.5 too.

 

[bmfang]

Glad you're still using it! Couldn't get it to work for this diamond until I realised the depth is 3.83 on the report not 3.93. Seems to think the crown is higher than 32.5 too.

There is another stone in another thread (the recent HRD stone) I tried to use in your analyser and for over 30 mins on my phone I double and triple checked the inputs. Until I realised your final comment on the page which indicated that if no results occurred it may have been due to other factors like too much brillianteering.

 

[gm89uk]

There is another stone in another thread (the recent HRD stone) I tried to use in your analyser and for over 30 mins on my phone I double and triple checked the inputs. Until I realised your final comment on the page which indicated that if no results occurred it may have been due to other factors like too much brillianteering.

Sorry for the trouble. I inputted both the 1.70 and 2.09 stones in the HRD thread without issues. found results although widespread.

Real pain doing it on a phone!

 

[Diamond Girl 21]

You've gotten some great advice. I'd just like to add that you are the only one who can judge your comfort level in regard to color and clarity. Personally, G color is where I start to see a tint, and I can almost always see the characteristics in the VS2 clarity range. My advice is to make sure you know where your personal comfort level is before making a selection.

Try to enjoy the process and your new ring.

 

[Lindsay Loo]

Hi All!

Travel plans put a delay in things but I have been in contact with Jamie from BGD in regards to shipping them my setting (getting diamond removed tonight).

I'm currently deciding between these two:

https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/.../0.852-d-vs1-round-diamond-ags-c-104105166006

https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/.../0.835-d-vs1-round-diamond-ags-c-104105166087

I was leaning towards the first one since the inclusions are not in the table but wanted to get your guys thoughts on the proportions.

Also, I know AGS negligible fluor includes both none & faint. I'm slightly worried about these being D's and having faint flour. My current diamond is an F and GIA cert shows faint but it's blue in sunlight and sometimes in indirect sunlight and I really don't love it (I know some do). :/

 

[Lindsay Loo]

Update on the fluor, BGD tested both and confirmed none for me

 

[Dancing Fire]

Update on the fluor, BGD tested both and confirmed none for me

Flip a coin on these two stones...

 

[Lindsay Loo]

Haha that's what I thought. Thinking the .852 will be more mind clean for me knowing the inclusions are outside the table. Starting to get excited! Also, I know sunlight can do this as well but my current one is an F with faint Fluorescence doesn't it look a little toooooo blue



Right after in shade:

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thinking the .852 will be more mind clean for me knowing the inclusions are outside the table.

For the record, in general an inclusion under the table can be much smaller than an inclusion under a crown facet. Even as much as half the size / visibility than one under the table for any given clarity grade.
A good approach is say a diamond that has multiple inclusions under crown facets etc
Or you know that you will be able to place a prong near the inclusion and you have confidence the vendor has good enough communication channels to ensure that happens.

 

[Lindsay Loo]

Okay now I'm second guessing myself

 

[TreeScientist]

What about your decision are you second guessing?

 

[Lindsay Loo]

Looks like less light leakage on the other one. But in the past, I have been more sensitive to table inclusions than feathers under the crown which is why I made the decision I did.