Thoughts on these 2 Stones

[esguy27]

I''m looking at a couple RBs right now and I am interested in hearing your thoughts/opinions on them. Which do you prefer?

Diamond #1

Laboratory: AGS
Carat Weight: 1.112
Color: I
Clarity: SI2
Cash Price: $4,538
Measurements: 6.62x6.65x4.11
Depth: 61.9%
Table: 56%
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: Pointed
Girdle: 1.2-2.0
Fluorescence: None
Culet: Pointed
Crown Angle : 34.8°
Crown %: 15.1
Pavillion Angle : 41.0°
Pavillion %: 43.1

Diamond #2

Laboratory: AGS
Carat Weight: 1.273
Color: I
Clarity: SI1
Cash Price: $6,281
Measurements: 6.98x7.00x4.29
Depth: 61.4%
Table: 56%
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: Pointed
Girdle: 0.7-1.4
Fluorescence: None
Culet: Pointed
Crown Angle : 34.5°
Crown %: 15.1
Pavillion Angle : 41.0°
Pavillion %: 43.4

Both stones are eye clean. I will post the Idealscopes for each stone right now. Thanks for your opinions.

 

[esguy27]

Diamond #1

 

[esguy27]

Diamond #2

 

[Shay37]

Of the two, I like the IS for diamond number 1 better. There appears to a good amount of light leakage under the table in the second diamond, if I am interpreting the IS accurately. I am not an expert, so you may want to wait for one to chime in.

If they are both eyeclean, buy #1 and save the money.

shay

 

[esguy27]

Yeah, I wasn''t sure that the difference in price ($1700) was worth going from SI1 to SI2 (since they are both eyeclean) getting an extra 0.17 carats, and the slight difference in HCAs (2.1 for #1 and 1.8 for #2). And like you said, the IS is actually a little better for the smaller, SI2 stone.

I just wanted to get a few opinions to make sure I wasn''t missing anything here.

 

[jaz464]

Based on the IS, I like #1 better too (also not an expert

)

 

[belle]

even though the diamond is tilted in the first image, it is still better than the second.

are you aware that you can get an ags0 for about the same price? i think it is worth looking into.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 11/2/2005 7:08:04 PM
Author: belle
even though the diamond is tilted in the first image, it is still better than the second.

are you aware that you can get an ags0 for about the same price? i think it is worth looking into.

Am I missing something about the two diamonds posted? They look to fit the AGS0 parameters to me, unless I''m spacing out?

 

[Kaleigh]

That''s what I thought too Alj??

 

[belle]

Date: 11/2/2005 8:24:52 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 11/2/2005 7:08:04 PM
Author: belle
even though the diamond is tilted in the first image, it is still better than the second.

are you aware that you can get an ags0 for about the same price? i think it is worth looking into.

Am I missing something about the two diamonds posted? They look to fit the AGS0 parameters to me, unless I''m spacing out?

you are fired!

if you plug the numbers into hca, you can see that they both miss hitting ags0.

 

[Mara]

that second diamond seems to have a ring of leakage under the table which is interesting since the specs seem better to me than the first diamond....

the first one is nice too from numbers and IS but i would have said #2 based on just the numbers, but not with the ring of leakage!

 

[esguy27]

I was told by the vendor (a very respected PS vendor) that both stones are AGS0. Can someone enlighten me on how exactly that is determined?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/3/2005 10:48:32 AM
Author: esguy27
I was told by the vendor (a very respected PS vendor) that both stones are AGS0. Can someone enlighten me on how exactly that is determined?

Properly, .... by sending the diamonds to AGS.

Loosely, this means that the diamond has a certain combination of crown & pavilion angles that is compatible with a certain AGS cut grade.


Hope this helps

 

[belle]

esguy,
the stones may have been graded under the old ags system. you can see that when you enter the numbers into the hca, they miss making it into ags0 (the white outline area). i confirmed by running them both through diamcalc.
i''ll post those results here.

 

[belle]

and for the second stone:

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 11/2/2005 10:00:20 PM
Author: belle

Date: 11/2/2005 8:24:52 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 11/2/2005 7:08:04 PM
Author: belle
even though the diamond is tilted in the first image, it is still better than the second.

are you aware that you can get an ags0 for about the same price? i think it is worth looking into.

Am I missing something about the two diamonds posted? They look to fit the AGS0 parameters to me, unless I'm spacing out?

you are fired!

if you plug the numbers into hca, you can see that they both miss hitting ags0.

No, YOU'RE fired. The second one does indeed fall within the AGS-0 parameters on HCA.

(As a side note, I wasn't aware that the HCA has now qualified AGS0 candidates through its mechanism).

I'm not sure which software you're using above.......haven't seen that before......but the second one does fall within there. Having that said that, i think I prefer the first IS image.

 

[esguy27]

Alj, what is it about the first diamond that you like better? The IS is definitely better, but is there anything else?

 

[belle]

Date: 11/3/2005 11:57:49 AM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 11/2/2005 10:00:20 PM
Author: belle

Date: 11/2/2005 8:24:52 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 11/2/2005 7:08:04 PM
Author: belle
even though the diamond is tilted in the first image, it is still better than the second.

are you aware that you can get an ags0 for about the same price? i think it is worth looking into.

Am I missing something about the two diamonds posted? They look to fit the AGS0 parameters to me, unless I''m spacing out?

you are fired!

if you plug the numbers into hca, you can see that they both miss hitting ags0.

No, YOU''RE fired. The second one does indeed fall within the AGS-0 parameters on HCA.

(As a side note, I wasn''t aware that the HCA has now qualified AGS0 candidates through its mechanism).

I''m not sure which software you''re using above.......haven''t seen that before......but the second one does fall within there. Having that said that, i think I prefer the first IS image.

the second one does not fall INSIDE of the box. it is on the line, that is why i ran it through diamcalc and found it scored a 1.