Thoughts on these ideal cuts please?

[Lana S]

Hello, I'm new to this forum and would love to have some experts opine on the following 1.5 carat, both E colour VVS2 stones:

#1. 57% table, 35.5 crown angle, 41 pavilion angle, 62.9 depth - GIA
#2. 57% table, 34.7 crown angle, 40.7 pavilion angle, 61.8 depth - AGS

Have been told by some that they are very compatible in terms of cut, but also received feedback that the first one is too deep and the angles don't look quite right.

Would like to get your thoughts, and whether the certificates should be a factor to consider?

Thanks all

 

[igs]

Hello, I'm new to this forum and would love to have some experts opine on the following 1.5 carat, both E colour VVS2 stones:

#1. 57% table, 35.5 crown angle, 41 pavilion angle, 62.9 depth - GIA
#2. 57% table, 34.7 crown angle, 40.7 pavilion angle, 61.8 depth - AGS

Have been told by some that they are very compatible in terms of cut, but also received feedback that the first one is too deep and the angles don't look quite right.

Would like to get your thoughts, and whether the certificates should be a factor to consider?

Thanks all

Hi Lana S,
Diamond #1 has a crown angle and pavilion angle that will not result in a high hca score

 

[igs]

Diamond number 1 has an hca score of 4.0. Diamond number 2 has an hca score of 1.2 Definitely recommend diamond number 2 provided that the price is right. Yes, for diamond number one, a 62.9depth is deep although ideal is up to around 63%. Both AGS and GIA are totally acceptable certificates. Hope this helps you out.

 

[Lana S]

Thank you so much, igs!

That's quite helpful - there's also one additional consideration, diamond #1 is ever so slightly whiter despite the same colour grading of the two, and also costs approximately 3k more, not sure whether this is really worth the additional money, given the cut of #2 appears better?

 

[lolov]

Thank you so much, igs!

That's quite helpful - there's also one additional consideration, diamond #1 is ever so slightly whiter despite the same colour grading of the two, and also costs approximately 3k more, not sure whether this is really worth the additional money, given the cut of #2 appears better?

If you have access to ASET or idealscope images you could have a more definitive answer about light performance. Evan H&A images or a face up view of the stone may give a little insight on light leak. Have you seen them in person to know the color is better? E should not have detectable color to the naked eye so I am wondering if there is some other variable that may account for the whiter appearance between the two E stones.

One other consideration, sometimes deeper stones have smaller face-up diameters. You may want to look to see if the diameter of the 62.9% is smaller (ex. more comparable to a 1.4ct stone), in which case you may be better off getting a better cut 1.4ct stone. 1.5 is one of those sizes that sometimes they cut the stone a bit deeper just to get the carat weight.

 

[Lana S]

Thanks lolov!

There isn't an image for diamond #1 available, but here's the light performance map for #2, there seems to be a lot of grey areas, is this normal for an ideal cut diamond?

 

[lolov]

Thanks lolov!

There isn't an image for diamond #1 available, but here's the light performance map for #2, there seems to be a lot of grey areas, is this normal for an ideal cut diamond?

Is it AGS graded (that type of image usually appears on AGS report)? AGS includes a light performance rating. The light performance actually looks pretty good based on the AGSL (without seeing the actual ASET images). It is normal to have gray like that on the hearts view, it is the face up view you do not want to see light leakage.

 

[lolov]

here is a sample AGS report of an ideal light performance with images https://www.whiteflash.com/articlefiles/aset/ags-plat-dual-cert.jpg

 

[bmfang]

This is the complete set of light performance images from an AGS report. Which makes me guess that diamond #2 is from WF. Would not worry about the grey on the hearts ASET at all.

Solid ASET looking crown facing up. Lots of red, minimal amounts of green and grey, and a great contrast pattern for the arrows.

 

[Lana S]

hi lolov, bmfang, you guys are experts! Yes diamond #2 is from whiteflash (ACA) range), whereas #1 is from Blue Nile. I'm more inclined to go ahead with #2, but just wanted to make sure that #2 is a good pick based on the images (pricing aside). Thanks!!

 

[lolov]

hi lolov, bmfang, you guys are experts! Yes diamond #2 is from whiteflash (ACA) range), whereas #1 is from Blue Nile. I'm more inclined to go ahead with #2, but just wanted to make sure that #2 is a good pick based on the images (pricing aside). Thanks!!

that is a great looking ASET

 

[bmfang]

If diamond #1 is from BN's Signature Ideal range (which is effectively their H&A range), I would still go for the WF ACA. Going by the specs you've posted for #1, I don't think it would be as I haven't seen any BN Sig Ideals with CA's higher than 35 coupled with a PA of 41.

WF also is way better upgrade wise as well!

 

[lolov]

If diamond #1 is from BN's Signature Ideal range (which is effectively their H&A range), I would still go for the WF ACA. Going by the specs you've posted for #1, I don't think it would be as I haven't seen any BN Sig Ideals with CA's higher than 35 coupled with a PA of 41.

WF also is way better upgrade wise as well!

I agree, if I only had the information available in this thread I would pick #2. If I only had the specifications in the original post I would also pick #2.

 

[Lana S]

thank you so much, you guys rock! (no pun intended!)

 

[Lana S]

If diamond #1 is from BN's Signature Ideal range (which is effectively their H&A range), I would still go for the WF ACA. Going by the specs you've posted for #1, I don't think it would be as I haven't seen any BN Sig Ideals with CA's higher than 35 coupled with a PA of 41.

WF also is way better upgrade wise as well!

bmfang, I just realised you're also from Australia as well! Just wanted to check if you know whether it is correct that we will need to incur 10% GST and customs processing fee, but exempt from duties if we buy the diamond loose?

 

[bmfang]

@Lana S, yes it should be without duties. However, there are fees that Border Force/Customs/whatevertheyarecalled will collect because the importation is less than 10k or something. FedEx may also charge a fee as well, so it works out to be an additional 12-14% on top of the invoiced price in AUD (after conversion from USD). It will still be cheaper than sourcing a superideal stone from a local jeweller (if they can source them apart from purchasing a HoF stone).

 

[Lana S]

@bmfang thanks a lot, that's very helpful!

 

[Lana S]

Unfortunately I wasn't fast enough to act, the diamond #1 was sold!

I've also managed to find these 2 which are both identical in cut, clarity, carat and price... would love if you experts can let me know which you'd prefer more given your expertise! Thank you!!

 

[bmfang]

Both options look good. I presume both of them will be eye clean, but if both are the same price, I'd take the one with fewer inclusion types.

 

[Lana S]

Thanks for being so responsive @bmfang Just wondering whether the depth of 61.1 is a bit on the shallow end, and also a shorter crown height?

Sorry if I'm asking really ignorant questions...

 

[SimoneDi]

No, that's ideally where you want the depth to be because the spread will be greater!

P.S. Ideal cut is up to 62% depth, not 63%!

 

[bmfang]

Thanks for being so responsive @bmfang Just wondering whether the depth of 61.1 is a bit on the shallow end, and also a shorter crown height?

Sorry if I'm asking really ignorant questions...

You're in a sweet spot there re: depth. I usually set my depth search parameters from 60.5 to 62.5 (though with 62.5 depth, looking at the stone in a vid or image becomes important to me). Crown angle is important, but the pavilion angle is even more important.

 

[Lana S]

Thanks @bmfang and @SimoneDi
One last dilemma - the following correspond to the 2 diamonds above:
Left: 61.8% depth diamond above, with more inclusion types (seems like a darker red, with less black dots next to the arrows)
Right: 61.1% depth diamond above, with less inclusion types (but more black dots next to the arrows below)

Taking into the above in consideration, would you consider one to be better than the other? I'm so sorry if I'm over-analyzing this... I'm really an amateur.. *blush*

 

[gm89uk]

The best people to all ask are white flash themselves to compare in person

 

[bmfang]

Lana, the areas in between the arrows where you are seeing the black contrast dots are somewhat expected. Keep in mind that they will likely be there when you are looking at the stone up close and from a distance you will not notice them.

As gm89uk has said above, if you want another opinion on those areas, best to have a chat with a WF rep via online chat and get them to potentially place both stones on hold so that someone else doesn't swoop in and pick them up while you are making up your mind.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Both options look good. I presume both of them will be eye clean, but if both are the same price, I'd take the one with fewer inclusion types.

This can be very wrong. More inclusion types mean there is less chance any are eye visible.
Secondly, the central inclusion is very small on the scan - if the cloud is large enough it can reduce the brilliance. If the cloud was the only grade maker listed, it would reduce the brilliance.

 

[bmfang]

This can be very wrong. More inclusion types mean there is less chance any are eye visible.
Secondly, the central inclusion is very small on the scan - if the cloud is large enough it can reduce the brilliance. If the cloud was the only grade maker listed, it would reduce the brilliance.

Happy to be schooled on this by the cut maven @Garry H (Cut Nut)!

 

[lb0424]

More inclusion types mean there is less chance any are eye visible.

@Garry H (Cut Nut) Going along with that logic, would it be better to chose a diamond with more inclusion types than just one or two grade defining inclusion(s) when shopping for a SI1 (or perhaps SI2) stone? Thanks! Ahh...I need a "cheat sheet" that show me what are the more "preferred" inclusions....

 

[Lana S]

Thank you all for the insights! @bmfang @Garry H (Cut Nut)

While WF came back to suggest the one with more inclusions, im still thinking whether a couple feathers near the girdle is okay?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think GIA are very hard on feathers because of chipping risk.
You can request girdle.feather be set right beside a prong. Not under and not in between.