Thought I knew what I was doing...

[marktylerj]

Just when I think I get it...I keep getting more and more confused as I go. I''m not the most savvy diamond shopper, and have leaned heavily on online vendors and this site to help do my research. I''m on a budget of <$4000, and thought I had found something reasonable at BN. After plugging my diamond into the HCA, however, the diamond didn''t project as well as I had hoped (I know, I know...the HCA isn''t flawless or what I should depend upon. But still.).

As I said, I found this diamond at BN for $2425:

Carat weight: 0.78
Cut: Ideal
Color: H
Clarity: SI1
Depth %: 61.9%
Table %: 57%
Symmetry: Very good
Polish: Very good
Girdle: Thin to medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 5.94 x 5.99 x 3.69 mm
HCA Score: A horrendous 5.4

After plugging in the figures to the HCA, however, it didn''t look too impressive to me. Here is the next diamond I found for $2547:

Carat weight: 0.70
Cut: Signature Ideal
Color: H
Clarity: SI1
Depth %: 61.4%
Table %: 56%
Symmetry: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Thin to medium, faceted
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 5.72 x 5.77 x 3.53 mm
HCA Score: 1.8

Finally, the setting I chose was this for $1200:

Metal: 950 platinum
Width: 1.8mm
Prong metal: Platinum
Number of round diamonds: 20
Minimum carat total
weight (ct. tw.): 0.08
Average color: H
Average clarity: VS2
Setting type: Pavé setting

I have looked everywhere and haven''t found (nor has my girlfriend) anything that we like any better within my budget. My question is this: Will the visual performance be vastly different with these two diamonds? Also, will there be a major difference in the size of a .70 ctw and .78 ctw center stone?

Any other help anyone can give would be greatly appreciated.

 

[strmrdr]

can we get the rest of the numbers for both diamonds please?

Im heading too bed but will check back in the AM.

 

[marktylerj]

So sorry...

Diamond #1:
Depth %- 60%
Table %- 57%
Crown angle- 34
Pavilion angle- 40.5
Culet- None

Thin-medium girdle
Both polish and symmetry are excellent, no fluorescence
Clarity characteristics- Crystal, cloud, feather

Diamond #2:
Depth %- 61.4%
Table %- 56%
Crown angle- 34.5
Pavilion angle- 41
Culet- None
Thin-medium girdle
Both polish and symmetry are excellent, no fluorescence
Clarity characteristics- Crystal, cloud, feather

Hope that covers everything.

 

[Splinter]

Date: 4/30/2008 3:59:49 AM
Author: marktylerj
Diamond #1:

Depth %- 60%

Table %- 57%

Crown angle- 34

Pavilion angle- 40.5

Culet- None

I think you''ve got those numbers wrong. They''re what''s in the HCA by default... Depth and Table don''t match the original 61.9% and 57% that you posted.

It just gets more and more stressful doesn''t it?

 

[iheartscience]

I think you can do better. I would go with another vendor, like Whiteflash.com, who offers more information, like pictures, idealscopes, etc. Plus, Whiteflash has an upgrade policy where you can trade your diamond in and put the full cost towards another diamond.

Here is a bit of a budget stretch, but you could get a .9 carat I/SI1 hearts and arrows A Cut Above (ACA) from Whiteflash.com for $4141. If you pay by wire transfer and ask for a Pricescope discount I believe you get 5% off, which makes it $3933. Then you can go with their simple 6 prong setting in white gold for $250. Here''s the web address for the diamond:

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-684399.htm

If you don''t want to stretch the budget that much, they have a ton of great ACA diamonds in the .7 carat range to choose from. The prices vary quite a bit depending on color and clarity, but they start at around $2600.

As for the setting, with a budget like yours (around $4k), I wouldn''t spend $1200 on a diamond and platinum setting. That''s a big chunk of money that could go towards a better/bigger diamond. If it has to be platinum for sure, I would go for a less expensive platinum setting. The simple 6 prong setting at Whiteflash is $600 in platinum. Or if a diamond setting is very important, I would go for a less expensive white gold setting with diamonds. Also, keep in mind that you can always upgrade the setting later for an anniversary/birthday/whatever.

Alright, there''s my full 2 cents!

 

[LitigatorChick]

I agree with Thing2of2 - sink most of your budget into the stone, and less into the setting.

 

[DRSDMS]

I agree wholehearedly. Don''t spend 30% of your bidget on a band. Sink the majority of teh money into the stone. You can always upgrade the band later on. It is less likely that you will upgrade the stone very soon.

 

[Splinter]

Date: 4/30/2008 9:25:44 AM
Author: DRSDMS
Don''t spend 30% of your bidget on a band.

I always try not to spend too much of my bidget. It can lead to medical complications later.

 

[marktylerj]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone! I thought $1200 was too much for the band, but I haven''t found one that I like (or that she likes) any better yet. And I haven''t found one similar enough to that one yet. However, I did find the following at James Allen for $2570. It looks like a better deal...let me know:

Shape: Round
Carat weight: 0.81
Cut: Hearts & Arrows Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: SI2
Certificate: AGS

Depth: 60.9%
Table: 55.0%
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Girdle: Thin to medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Neglible
Measurements: 6.03*6.05*3.68

Crown Angle: 34.2°
Crown %: 15.40
pavilion Angle: 40.5°
pavilion %: 42.50
HCA Score: .4

Also, can anyone tell me how the HCA scores of .4 and 1.5 differ? I''ve read that some people may prefer the higher number. What is the difference? Thanks again for all the responses. I certainly appreciate it.

 

[marktylerj]

You''re right...I messed the numbers up, but my HCA was still accurate. Here it is:

Diamond #1:
Depth %- 61.9%
Table %- 57%
Crown angle- 34.5
Pavilion angle- 41.8
Culet- None
Thin-medium girdle
Both polish and symmetry are very good, no fluorescence
Clarity characteristics- Crystal, feather, cloud

Sorry for the mix-up!

 

[marktylerj]

At the risk of being annoying--and dominating my own thread--here is another that I found from Whiteflash for $2760:

40x photo: http://www.whiteflash.com/pimg/diamonds/DI40X_AGS-9379802.jpg

Item Code: AGS-9379802
. Report: AGS
. Shape: A Cut Above H&A
. Carat: 0.730
. Depth %: 62.1
. Table %: 54.7
. Crown Angle: 34.8
. Crown %: 15.8
. Star : 52
. Pavilion Angle: 40.8
. Pavilion %: 42.9
. Lower Girdle %: 76
. Girdle: Faceted Thin to Medium
. Measurements: 5.77-5.80X3.59
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish: Ideal
. Symmetry: Ideal
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible
HCA: 1.5

Thoughts?

 

[Splinter]

Nice stone. Idealscope looks good too. We may have a winner! Just check that it's eye clean.

 

[iheartscience]

I''d go with Whiteflash-they''re great and their ACAs are amazing. That one looks like a beaut! Just so you know, I''m pretty sure Blue Nile won''t sell settings separately. So if you don''t buy the diamond from them, you can''t get one of their settings. However, most of their settings are very common and if you went with Whiteflash I''m sure they could either make you something similar/exactly the same or order you something similar/exactly the same.

Just make sure your girlfriend knows what she''s missing by sinking so much $ into the setting. She could get the .9 carat and a less expensive setting! The size difference between a .7 and a .9 would definitely be noticeable.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 4/30/2008 10:59:18 AM
Author: marktylerj

At the risk of being annoying--and dominating my own thread--here is another that I found from Whiteflash for $2760:

40x photo: http://www.whiteflash.com/pimg/diamonds/DI40X_AGS-9379802.jpg

Item Code: AGS-9379802

. Report: AGS
. Shape: A Cut Above H&A
. Carat: 0.730
. Depth %: 62.1
. Table %: 54.7
. Crown Angle: 34.8
. Crown %: 15.8
. Star : 52
. Pavilion Angle: 40.8
. Pavilion %: 42.9
. Lower Girdle %: 76
. Girdle: Faceted Thin to Medium
. Measurements: 5.77-5.80X3.59
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish: Ideal
. Symmetry: Ideal
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible
HCA: 1.5

Thoughts?

I''d for sure go with this one as long as it is eye clean...and it certainly looks like it is from the photo! They also have beautiful settings. Look at the Legato with micropave.

 

[NeverEndingUpgrade]

Did you look at GoodOldGold.com for diamonds? They show tons of info on each diamond that they sell.

 

[bling addict]

Date: 4/30/2008 6:29:27 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 4/30/2008 10:59:18 AM

Author: marktylerj


At the risk of being annoying--and dominating my own thread--here is another that I found from Whiteflash for $2760:


40x photo: http://www.whiteflash.com/pimg/diamonds/DI40X_AGS-9379802.jpg


Item Code: AGS-9379802


. Report: AGS

. Shape: A Cut Above H&A

. Carat: 0.730

. Depth %: 62.1

. Table %: 54.7

. Crown Angle: 34.8

. Crown %: 15.8

. Star : 52

. Pavilion Angle: 40.8

. Pavilion %: 42.9

. Lower Girdle %: 76

. Girdle: Faceted Thin to Medium

. Measurements: 5.77-5.80X3.59

. Light Performance: 0

. Polish: Ideal

. Symmetry: Ideal

. Culet: Pointed

. Fluorescence: Negligible

HCA: 1.5


Thoughts?

I''d for sure go with this one as long as it is eye clean...and it certainly looks like it is from the photo! They also have beautiful settings. Look at the Legato with micropave.

Ditto Diamondseeker, I was trying to post last night but was having issues with my internet, I thought the Legato Micropave looks similar to the look you were trying to achieve, and I think it''s a gorgeous setting.

 

[marktylerj]

Thanks for your help, everyone. Just one more...

Between these two diamonds, which looks better:

Diamond 1:
Price: $2760
. Report: AGS
. Shape: A Cut Above H&A
. Carat: 0.730
. Depth %: 62.1
. Table %: 54.7
. Crown Angle: 34.8
. Crown %: 15.8
. Star : 52
. Pavilion Angle: 40.8
. Pavilion %: 42.9
. Lower Girdle %: 76
. Girdle: Faceted Thin to Medium
. Measurements: 5.77-5.80X3.59
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish: Ideal
. Symmetry: Ideal
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible

Diamond 2:
Price: $2472
. Report: AGS
. Shape: A Cut Above H&A
. Carat: 0.703
. Depth %: 61.7
. Table %: 54.9
. Crown Angle: 34.7
. Crown %: 15.6
. Star : 50
. Pavilion Angle: 40.9
. Pavilion %: 43.2
. Lower Girdle %: 75
. Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
. Measurements: 5.71-5.75X3.53
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish: Ideal
. Symmetry: Ideal
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible

Thoughts?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 5/2/2008 4:44:22 PM
Author: marktylerj
Thanks for your help, everyone. Just one more...

Between these two diamonds, which looks better:

Diamond 1:
Price: $2760
. Report: AGS
. Shape: A Cut Above H&A
. Carat: 0.730
. Depth %: 62.1
. Table %: 54.7
. Crown Angle: 34.8
. Crown %: 15.8
. Star : 52
. Pavilion Angle: 40.8
. Pavilion %: 42.9
. Lower Girdle %: 76
. Girdle: Faceted Thin to Medium
. Measurements: 5.77-5.80X3.59
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish: Ideal
. Symmetry: Ideal
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible

Diamond 2:
Price: $2472
. Report: AGS
. Shape: A Cut Above H&A
. Carat: 0.703
. Depth %: 61.7
. Table %: 54.9
. Crown Angle: 34.7
. Crown %: 15.6
. Star : 50
. Pavilion Angle: 40.9
. Pavilion %: 43.2
. Lower Girdle %: 75
. Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
. Measurements: 5.71-5.75X3.53
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish: Ideal
. Symmetry: Ideal
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible

Thoughts?

What's the color and clarity? Can you link the stones so we can see the scopes etc?

PS: Check out the legato with micropave in 18K White gold. Great price, Goregeous ring. I own the original legato with a .80ct stone if you wanna see what it looks like with a stone similar to what you are considering (look at my topics and you will find my SMTR thread). It is the most beautiful solotaire setting I have ever seen in person.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I don''t need to see the idealscopes because all ACA''s have great idealscope images! But of those two, I''d just pick the one with the best color and clarity, because they are both AGS000 stones and very close in size! I guess mentally the .73 sounds bigger, so I might lean toward that one if color and clarity are equal.

 

[Ellen]

I vote diamond #1.

 

[marktylerj]

Diamond #1:
40x: http://www.whiteflash.com/pimg/diamonds/DI40X_AGS-9379802.jpg
Idealscope: http://www.whiteflash.com/pimg/IdealScope/IS_AGS-9379802.jpg
0.73 ct
H
SI1
A Cut Above H&A

Diamond #2:
40x: http://www.whiteflash.com/pimg/diamonds/DI40X_AGS-9408708.jpg
Idealscope: http://www.whiteflash.com/pimg/IdealScope/IS_AGS-9408708.jpg
.703 ct
I
SI1
A Cut Above H&A

Thanks!

 

[marktylerj]

Here is one more...

Diamond #3:
Idealscope: http://www.jamesallen.com/_images/idealscope/DV026id.jpg
Shape: Round
Carat weight: 0.81
Cut: Hearts & Arrows Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: SI2
Certificate: AGS

Depth: 60.9%
Table: 55.0%
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Girdle: Thin to medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Neglible
Measurements: 6.03*6.05*3.68

Crown Angle: 34.2°
Crown %: 15.40
pavilion Angle: 40.5°
pavilion %: 42.50

I love this and hate it at the same time. I keep thinking I''m ready to pull the trigger, then back off. This price on the last one is $2570. Thanks, everyone!

 

[Ellen]

Still #1!

 

[marktylerj]

Thanks, Ellen. Do you mind if I ask why?

The first diamond has an HCA of 1.4. The third has an HCA of 0.4 and is almost a full .10 larger. I'm just curious as to why you say it.

Also, why do you think the third diamond is cheaper than the first if it is larger and of similar quality?

Thanks again for everyone's help! This diamond novice certainly appreciates it.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/3/2008 12:39:35 PM
Author: marktylerj
Thanks, Ellen. Do you mind if I ask why?

The first diamond has an HCA of 1.4. The third has an HCA of 0.4 and is almost a full .10 larger. I'm just curious as to why you say it.

Also, why do you think the third diamond is cheaper than the first if it is larger and of similar quality?

Thanks again for everyone's help! This diamond novice certainly appreciates it.

No, I don't mind!

Ok, firstly, a score of .04 is not "better" than a score of 1.4, if that is what you were thinking. Any score of 2 and under just means it's time to move on to more info, which you've got now. Also, it has been noted by Gary that many people prefer stones that fall in the 1-2 range. The JA stone has angles on the shallower side, especially the pavilion angle. It seems that going past a 40.6 PA is rather tricky in getting a great performing stone. I know GOG has had a few, but Jon said it's on a case by case basis, and they must be put through the tests. I think most experts agree that's a tad too shallow on the whole. It can cause head shadow, and the stone may lack in contrast/scinitillation, and may possibly appear a bit glassy.

And that leads me to why I think it is going for less, these are not the most ideal angles. Stones are not just priced on things we normally think about such as color, clarity, tec. They are also priced on the cut, or lack thereof.

So, I picked the one I did because of these things I listed, plus, for less than 300 dollars, you get a color grade higher, and a tad bigger stone than the second one.

And you are welcome!

 

[Imdanny]

Good luck with whichever one you choose.

 

[marktylerj]

Your explanation helped a great deal, Ellen! Thank you so much. I''ll let you know what I decide. Tomorrow is decision day!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I also still prefer the .73 H SI1. It is top cut quality and I think the SI1 is safer than SI2 unless you can see the stones in person. Plus, WhiteFlash has a MUCH better upgrade policy than JA does.

 

[marktylerj]

Thanks, Diamondseeker. I shot Jamie at Whiteflash an email yesterday telling her that was the one I was 99.9% sure I wanted. I''ll be making my final decision in the morning (after one more night''s sleep on it). She already confirmed that it was eye clean, which was a big concern for me. Thanks for all your help!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Good luck with your decision, Mark! Please come back with pictures when you propose!