Thoughts on this diamond? Thanks...

[mypak]

after much back and forth, they faxed me this gia report...looks great...what about to the PSers? thanks in advance

2.13 ct
round brilliant
E
VS2
cut - excellent
polish - very good
symmetry - excellent
table - 59%
depth - 59.7%
crown - 33.5%
pavillion - 41%

I ran through the holloway cut advisor, everything was excellent, only scintillation was "very good"

they're talking $29K

thoughts?

 

[Mara]

have you seen this diamond in person?

it''s a 60/60 which is kind of an older ''ideal'' kind of cut, but not my *personal* favorite though i know we have some 60/60 owners on here who love their stones. the crown balances out the pav, so the numbers are nice for that type of cut but just wondering if you have seen it in person? because this type of 60/60 look might be a preference thing. so if you have not seen it already, make sure you do see it and LOVE IT in all lighting situations. it might lack a wee bit of fire, so just make sure you see it and find out if that is the case or not.

otherwise the #''s look good for a 60/60 cut and the price seems nice for a 2c+ E VS2. have you seen more ''typical'' ideal stones like AGS0 to compare the look to? with a budget like $30k, you have a healthy budget, so just be sure to compare different types and get the most bang for your buck.

 

[mypak]

Date: 10/16/2006 1:30:38 PM
Author: Mara
have you seen this diamond in person?

it''s a 60/60 which is kind of an older ''ideal'' kind of cut, but not my *personal* favorite though i know we have some 60/60 owners on here who love their stones. the crown balances out the pav, so the numbers are nice for that type of cut but just wondering if you have seen it in person? because this type of 60/60 look might be a preference thing. so if you have not seen it already, make sure you do see it and LOVE IT in all lighting situations. it might lack a wee bit of fire, so just make sure you see it and find out if that is the case or not.

otherwise the #''s look good for a 60/60 cut and the price seems nice for a 2c+ E VS2. have you seen more ''typical'' ideal stones like AGS0 to compare the look to? with a budget like $30k, you have a healthy budget, so just be sure to compare different types and get the most bang for your buck.

have not seen in person, I will before I buy but honestly to my untrained eye they all look the same to me....the gia report is from 8/21/06 so it''s relatively new if that''s what you mean....so what''s the story on "60/60" diamonds?....on the holloway cut advisor, fire was excellent if that means anything...

 

[mypak]

how about vs. this?

2 ct
E
VS1
excellent cut
polish and symmetry - very good

holloway cut advisor: everything is very good except spread which is excellent

table - 59%
depth - 60.1%
crown - 33.5%
pavillion - 41.2%

thanks again...similar price as the first one

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/16/2006 1:43:29 PM
Author: mypak
how about vs. this?

2 ct
E
VS1
excellent cut
polish and symmetry - very good

holloway cut advisor: everything is very good except spread which is excellent

table - 59%
depth - 60.1%
crown - 33.5%
pavillion - 41.2%

thanks again...similar price as the first one

It''s pretty much like the first. How about this?

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-70075.htm#

 

[mypak]

Date: 10/16/2006 1:50:18 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/16/2006 1:43:29 PM
Author: mypak
how about vs. this?

2 ct
E
VS1
excellent cut
polish and symmetry - very good

holloway cut advisor: everything is very good except spread which is excellent

table - 59%
depth - 60.1%
crown - 33.5%
pavillion - 41.2%

thanks again...similar price as the first one

It''s pretty much like the first. How about this?

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-70075.htm#

which do you think is better? the whiteflash one is color G?

 

[jaz464]

You can most definitely consider a G or lower with an excellent cut round.

 

[Ellen]

I really like the one I posted. I have a G, let me tell you, you''re not going to see any color in it, because it''s well cut.

I''d definitely look into the WF stone!

 

[mypak]

Date: 10/16/2006 1:56:48 PM
Author: Ellen
I really like the one I posted. I have a G, let me tell you, you're not going to see any color in it, because it's well cut.

I'd definitely look into the WF stone!

but it's basically the same price as the E I posted (the second one is $28k)? unless there is something about the whiteflash that makes it better than either one of the two? just wondering / making sure I'm not missing anything...thx

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I''d prefer a G color ideal cut diamond over an E that is not ideal cut, but that''s just me. G is very white..I can''t see any color in it.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/16/2006 1:58:23 PM
Author: mypak

Date: 10/16/2006 1:56:48 PM
Author: Ellen
I really like the one I posted. I have a G, let me tell you, you''re not going to see any color in it, because it''s well cut.

I''d definitely look into the WF stone!

but it''s basically the same price as the E I posted (the second one is $28k)? unless there is something about the whiteflash that makes it better than either one of the two? just wondering / making sure I''m not missing anything...thx

The specs are more desirable on the WF stone. It''s cut to better dimensions.

But good question!

 

[mypak]

Date: 10/16/2006 2:00:21 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I''d prefer a G color ideal cut diamond over an E that is not ideal cut, but that''s just me. G is very white..I can''t see any color in it.

it''s an excellent cut on the gia report...isn''t that their highest? i know there''s debate about what their excellent represents, etc....

 

[mypak]

Date: 10/16/2006 2:02:08 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/16/2006 1:58:23 PM
Author: mypak

Date: 10/16/2006 1:56:48 PM
Author: Ellen
I really like the one I posted. I have a G, let me tell you, you''re not going to see any color in it, because it''s well cut.

I''d definitely look into the WF stone!

but it''s basically the same price as the E I posted (the second one is $28k)? unless there is something about the whiteflash that makes it better than either one of the two? just wondering / making sure I''m not missing anything...thx

The specs are more desirable on the WF stone. It''s cut to better dimensions.

But good question!

table, depth, etc.?

 

[Ellen]

Yes, table, depth, angles. Great IS image. WF cuts nice stones. But you do pay for a well cut stone.

 

[mypak]

Date: 10/16/2006 2:20:06 PM
Author: Ellen
Yes, table, depth, angles. Great IS image. WF cuts nice stones. But you do pay for a well cut stone.

the ones i posted are also "excellent" cut by gia...my impression is that there is really no compelling diff btwn any of those 2 and the whiteflash one besides personal preference/past experience w/ wf? just guessing

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/16/2006 2:22:15 PM
Author: mypak

Date: 10/16/2006 2:20:06 PM
Author: Ellen
Yes, table, depth, angles. Great IS image. WF cuts nice stones. But you do pay for a well cut stone.

the ones i posted are also ''excellent'' cut by gia...my impression is that there is really no compelling diff btwn any of those 2 and the whiteflash one besides personal preference/past experience w/ wf? just guessing

Most people would prefer the WF specs. But it wouldn''t matter if WF cut it or someone else, it''s just the specs themselves. Those are "premo" ideal specs. You''ve also got a 41, and a 41.2 PA on those. If they''re tightly cut, not a problem, but if not, you may get a slightly leaky stone.

But if you want one of the other ones, that is your choice!

 

[studiorack]

My personal opinion is that I wouldn't go with a large G. I've been shopping the same carat range as you for the last couple of weeks. I've seen a couple of other AGS0 and excellent cut 2ct G's and the color is very obvious through the pavillion. F's are borderline at that size. I think you're on the right track with the E. Scores high on the HCA and it's a great price compared to market. I'd suggest making arrangements to take a look at it.

From what I've seen, it's hard to find a stone that scores Ex on all four for the HCA. When it does, the PS vendors want a premium for it. I've looked at stones that have 3Ex and 1Vg and there was no difference observed. Keep in mind that the HCA is a "work in progress". Conceivably you could be paying a premium for 4ex's when in the future adjustments to the HCA could kick one of those ex's to a vg.

 

[studiorack]

Date: 10/16/2006 1:52:09 PM
Author: mypak

Date: 10/16/2006 1:50:18 PM

Author: Ellen

Date: 10/16/2006 1:43:29 PM

Author: mypak

how about vs. this?


2 ct

E

VS1

excellent cut

polish and symmetry - very good


holloway cut advisor: everything is very good except spread which is excellent


table - 59%

depth - 60.1%

crown - 33.5%

pavillion - 41.2%


thanks again...similar price as the first one

It's pretty much like the first. How about this?


http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-70075.htm#

which do you think is better? the whiteflash one is color G?

Compared to your original E 2.19: The G also only has 3Ex's on the HCA. It's only a G, performs marginally better on Sc, and it's going to face up smaller due to both lower carat count and lower spread score. I like your E, better than the E suggested above. You're going up in clarity and losing carats (size). You're also losing performance.

Like I said before, the E seems like a great deal at the price they are offering you.

 

[mypak]

Date: 10/16/2006 2:30:57 PM
Author: studiorack
My personal opinion is that I wouldn''t go with a large G. I''ve been shopping the same carat range as you for the last couple of weeks. I''ve seen a couple of other AGS0 and excellent cut 2ct G''s and the color is very obvious through the pavillion. F''s are borderline at that size. I think you''re on the right track with the E. Scores high on the HCA and it''s a great price compared to market. I''d suggest making arrangements to take a look at it.

From what I''ve seen, it''s hard to find a stone that scores Ex on all four for the HCA. When it does, the PS vendors want a premium for it. I''ve looked at stones that have 3Ex and 1Vg and there was no difference observed. Keep in mind that the HCA is a ''work in progress''. Conceivably you could be paying a premium for 4ex''s when in the future adjustments to the HCA could kick one of those ex''s to a vg.

I agree...regardless of how the color looks to the naked eye, what''s on the cert is going to matter to my gf (and me) for peace of mind, etc. (of course it''s gotta look good also)...

which of the two stones were you referring to?

yes I agree, they are all good road maps but have to take all the variables and scores into consideration then take a look at the overall diamond...

thanks for your feedback and good luck finding one also...

 

[mypak]

Date: 10/16/2006 2:55:40 PM
Author: studiorack

Date: 10/16/2006 1:52:09 PM
Author: mypak

Date: 10/16/2006 1:50:18 PM

Author: Ellen

Date: 10/16/2006 1:43:29 PM

Author: mypak

how about vs. this?


2 ct

E

VS1

excellent cut

polish and symmetry - very good


holloway cut advisor: everything is very good except spread which is excellent


table - 59%

depth - 60.1%

crown - 33.5%

pavillion - 41.2%


thanks again...similar price as the first one

It''s pretty much like the first. How about this?


http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-70075.htm#

which do you think is better? the whiteflash one is color G?

Compared to your original E 2.19: The G also only has 3Ex''s on the HCA. It''s only a G, performs marginally better on Sc, and it''s going to face up smaller due to both lower carat count and lower spread score. I like your E, better than the E suggested above. You''re going up in clarity and losing carats (size). You''re also losing performance.

Like I said before, the E seems like a great deal at the price they are offering you.

so you like the 2.13 E vs. the 2.0 E?

 

[Mara]

Date: 10/16/2006 2:55:40 PM
Author: studiorack

Compared to your original E 2.19: The G also only has 3Ex's on the HCA. It's only a G, performs marginally better on Sc, and it's going to face up smaller due to both lower carat count and lower spread score. I like your E, better than the E suggested above. You're going up in clarity and losing carats (size). You're also losing performance.

Like I said before, the E seems like a great deal at the price they are offering you.

You are not comparing apples to apples. Both yummy fruit, but not the same type.

The first 2 are not super ideals and not typically ideal. Therefore they might be offered at a bit of a discount. To me, it doesn't matter what GIA says re EX...my stone is a VG GIA and it would literally blow both of those GIA EX stones out of the water because it's so well cut. I don't believe in their cut grading personally...it's just too holey.

The E and the 2nd stone posted have almost the same specs. They are both 60/60 stones. That is just an older type of 'ideal' cut that was popular years ago. Some people are still cutting them. Some people find them really beautiful! But you have to see them to know if you like them. And I don't just mean see them in the jeweler's store. You are spending $30k on a stone here, make it count. Get the best cut stone you can. Do due diligence and continue to research like you are.

To me that first E vs the WF G...the G would probably LOOK visually better and may even look the same whiteness due to the better cut. Or maybe not. That's why it's personal and hard to base JUST on #'s. That is why I asked if the OP had seen the first stone. I used to have a larger tabled shallower stone and it just was not my thing. It probably was not as well cut as the E but still. Too much whiteness, not enough fire.

Lastly, the first E posted DOES NOT have 4 EX's. It has 3. Most diamonds even superideals are only going to get 3. But which one is the one that is not EX? Spread is typically not EX unless it's a 60/60 or spready kind of non-ideal. I'd much rather have EX on Fire or Scint or Brill than EX on Spread. VG on Spread for me is where I'd want the VG.

Anyway, bottom line is that all these stones are probably in the top 5% of the stones in the world. The E is not a slouch but it's not a *spectacular deal* either. There is an ideal #'d stone that is 2.13 F VS2 at one of the online jewelers that is $29k as well. One color grade up, still in colorless, does not a spectacular deal make. BUT $29k is fair for this stone.

So anyway in the end, if you like the E and how it looks, go for it. But compare other stones as well. That G is worth at least looking into in my opinion. I'd much rather have the WF stone than the E you posted. but I am a cut-whore because I used to have a not so well cut stone that to me lacked something. Now I prefer cut over anything else.

 

[studiorack]

Date: 10/16/2006 3:08:56 PM
Author: mypak

Date: 10/16/2006 2:55:40 PM

Author: studiorack

Date: 10/16/2006 1:52:09 PM

Author: mypak

Date: 10/16/2006 1:50:18 PM


Author: Ellen

Date: 10/16/2006 1:43:29 PM


Author: mypak


how about vs. this?



2 ct


E


VS1


excellent cut


polish and symmetry - very good



holloway cut advisor: everything is very good except spread which is excellent



table - 59%


depth - 60.1%


crown - 33.5%


pavillion - 41.2%



thanks again...similar price as the first one

It''s pretty much like the first. How about this?



http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-70075.htm#

which do you think is better? the whiteflash one is color G?

Compared to your original E 2.19: The G also only has 3Ex''s on the HCA. It''s only a G, performs marginally better on Sc, and it''s going to face up smaller due to both lower carat count and lower spread score. I like your E, better than the E suggested above. You''re going up in clarity and losing carats (size). You''re also losing performance.


Like I said before, the E seems like a great deal at the price they are offering you.

so you like the 2.13 E vs. the 2.0 E?

I do. But that''s just a preference.

 

[studiorack]

Date: 10/16/2006 3:11:00 PM
Author: Mara


You are not comparing apples to apples. Both yummy fruit, but not the same type.


The first 2 are not super ideals and not typically ideal. Therefore they might be offered at a bit of a discount. It doesn't matter what GIA says re EX...my stone is a VG GIA and it would literally blow both of those GIA EX stones out of the water because it's so well cut.

Mara, how can your diamond "literally" blow other diamonds out of the water? I think you mean figuratively.

If you're going to disregard HCA and GIA, what method would you use? We can all agree that ACA and 8* are the super ideals, but what makes the G a super ideal to you?

You are spending $30k on a stone here, make it count. Get the best cut stone you can.

I would say getting a smaller the best cut versus a larger fantastic cut is subjective. We can all agree that cut is a critcal factor, but it is a steep diminishing return like everything else. If you are paying 20% more for a small performance difference, but the color is worse, and you're losing carats and size (which is more noticable) then I would argue that that's a judgement call on what is getting the best for your money.

Anyway, bottom line is that all these stones are probably in the top 5% of the stones in the world. The E is not a slouch but it's not a *spectacular deal* either. There is an ideal #'d stone that is 2.13 F VS2 at one of the online jewelers that is $29k as well. One color grade up, still in colorless, does not a spectacular deal make. BUT $29k is fair for this stone.

I'd argue that market price determines a good deal or not. Based on market price of similar diamonds, I'd say that it's a great deal. I never said that it's a spectacular deal. Maybe subjectively it doesn't fall into your preference, which would be a value call. It might not be a good value in your eyes, but it is a great deal in terms of market.

 

[:)]

Date: 10/16/2006 2:55:40 PM
Author: studiorack

Date: 10/16/2006 1:52:09 PM
Author: mypak

Date: 10/16/2006 1:50:18 PM

Author: Ellen

Date: 10/16/2006 1:43:29 PM

Author: mypak

how about vs. this?


2 ct

E

VS1

excellent cut

polish and symmetry - very good


holloway cut advisor: everything is very good except spread which is excellent


table - 59%

depth - 60.1%

crown - 33.5%

pavillion - 41.2%


thanks again...similar price as the first one

It's pretty much like the first. How about this?


http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-70075.htm#

which do you think is better? the whiteflash one is color G?

Compared to your original E 2.19: The G also only has 3Ex's on the HCA. It's only a G, performs marginally better on Sc, and it's going to face up smaller due to both lower carat count and lower spread score. I like your E, better than the E suggested above. You're going up in clarity and losing carats (size). You're also losing performance.

Like I said before, the E seems like a great deal at the price they are offering you.

Hi Mypak, I personally prefer the table size on the G. More likely to give better fire. Between 60/60 stones and ones with smaller table size, I would absolutely go with smaller table size - my eyes prefer the flashes of fire that I see more in smaller table sizes - I love the pow - pow - pow that comes out when the stone moves on the hand. Smaller table sizes and larger crown angles tend to give more fire. The purpose of the Holloway is not to be used to determine which stone is 'better', it is to eliminate ones most likely to be poor performers.

The G stone with the PS discount is $27039.

As far as color, I am looking at 3 carat stones which are even more likely to show color than 2 carats, and I would go as low as an H.

I would like to point out that GIA rounds their numbers on their reports, it is more accurate to use the sarin or ogi - WF used the sarin to get the angles on the G stone, so they will be more accurate.

One cannot say you are 'losing performance' based on anything that has been said.

This is another G VS2 which faces up a little larger if you are worried about spread..
http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-69812.htm

It is $25835 with PS Discount


If however you have seen the 2.13 E stone and love it, then go for it! 60/60 are still beautiful!


ETA: I would go as low as an H only on an extremely well cut stone - I have found it more difficult to detect color in very well cut stones. In poorly cut stones I wouldn't go that low.

 

[mypak]

Date: 10/16/2006 3:45:01 PM
Author:

Date: 10/16/2006 2:55:40 PM
Author: studiorack

Date: 10/16/2006 1:52:09 PM
Author: mypak

Date: 10/16/2006 1:50:18 PM

Author: Ellen

Date: 10/16/2006 1:43:29 PM

Author: mypak

how about vs. this?


2 ct

E

VS1

excellent cut

polish and symmetry - very good


holloway cut advisor: everything is very good except spread which is excellent


table - 59%

depth - 60.1%

crown - 33.5%

pavillion - 41.2%


thanks again...similar price as the first one

It''s pretty much like the first. How about this?


http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-70075.htm#

which do you think is better? the whiteflash one is color G?

Compared to your original E 2.19: The G also only has 3Ex''s on the HCA. It''s only a G, performs marginally better on Sc, and it''s going to face up smaller due to both lower carat count and lower spread score. I like your E, better than the E suggested above. You''re going up in clarity and losing carats (size). You''re also losing performance.

Like I said before, the E seems like a great deal at the price they are offering you.

Hi Mypak, I personally prefer the table size on the G. More likely to give better fire. Between 60/60 stones and ones with smaller table size, I would absolutely go with smaller table size - my eyes prefer the flashes of fire that I see more in smaller table sizes - I love the pow - pow - pow that comes out when the stone moves on the hand. Smaller table sizes and larger crown angles tend to give more fire. The purpose of the Holloway is not to be used to determine which stone is ''better'', it is to eliminate ones most likely to be poor performers.

The G stone with the PS discount is $27039.

As far as color, I am looking at 3 carat stones which are even more likely to show color than 2 carats, and I would go as low as an H.

I would like to point out that GIA rounds their numbers on their reports, it is more accurate to use the sarin or ogi - WF used the sarin to get the angles on the G stone, so they will be more accurate.

One cannot say you are ''losing performance'' based on anything that has been said.

This is another G VS2 which faces up a little larger if you are worried about spread..
http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-69812.htm

It is $25835 with PS Discount


If however you have seen the 2.13 E stone and love it, then go for it! 60/60 are still beautiful!

yeah gotta see in person first....also, it is a halo setting w/ diamonds on the halo and pave halfway around the band if that matters...

 

[:)]

Sounds beautiful!

 

[studiorack]

Date: 10/16/2006 3:49:41 PM
Author: mypak

Date: 10/16/2006 3:45:01 PM

Author:

Date: 10/16/2006 2:55:40 PM

Author: studiorack

Date: 10/16/2006 1:52:09 PM

Author: mypak

Date: 10/16/2006 1:50:18 PM


Author: Ellen

Date: 10/16/2006 1:43:29 PM


Author: mypak


how about vs. this?



2 ct


E


VS1


excellent cut


polish and symmetry - very good



holloway cut advisor: everything is very good except spread which is excellent



table - 59%


depth - 60.1%


crown - 33.5%


pavillion - 41.2%



thanks again...similar price as the first one

It's pretty much like the first. How about this?



http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-70075.htm#

which do you think is better? the whiteflash one is color G?

Compared to your original E 2.19: The G also only has 3Ex's on the HCA. It's only a G, performs marginally better on Sc, and it's going to face up smaller due to both lower carat count and lower spread score. I like your E, better than the E suggested above. You're going up in clarity and losing carats (size). You're also losing performance.


Like I said before, the E seems like a great deal at the price they are offering you.

Hi Mypak, I personally prefer the table size on the G. More likely to give better fire. Between 60/60 stones and ones with smaller table size, I would absolutely go with smaller table size - my eyes prefer the flashes of fire that I see more in smaller table sizes - I love the pow - pow - pow that comes out when the stone moves on the hand. Smaller table sizes and larger crown angles tend to give more fire. The purpose of the Holloway is not to be used to determine which stone is 'better', it is to eliminate ones most likely to be poor performers.


The G stone with the PS discount is $27039.


As far as color, I am looking at 3 carat stones which are even more likely to show color than 2 carats, and I would go as low as an H.


I would like to point out that GIA rounds their numbers on their reports, it is more accurate to use the sarin or ogi - WF used the sarin to get the angles on the G stone, so they will be more accurate.


One cannot say you are 'losing performance' based on anything that has been said.


This is another G VS2 which faces up a little larger if you are worried about spread..

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-69812.htm


It is $25835 with PS Discount



If however you have seen the 2.13 E stone and love it, then go for it! 60/60 are still beautiful!

yeah gotta see in person first....also, it is a halo setting w/ diamonds on the halo and pave halfway around the band if that matters...

Definitely see it in person. There are people here that push Whiteflash. I like WF and have bought from WF, but if they don't have anything similar to what you were looking for in the first place, look elsewhere. I've bought plenty of great stones from other vendors too.

 

[Mara]

Studio...your quotes are getting pretty long, you might want to crop out what is relevant to the last quote only.

ANYWAY...no one is pushing WF onto the OP. But someone posted a stone that some of us would definitely consider. What part of ''I would definitely check into the G stone as well'' is pushing a vendor? By all means check out the other PS vendors too. I *also* said above there was another stone, a 2.13 F VS2 that looks promising for $29k. Not from WF.

By all means people should get what makes them happy, that is why people were asking if they have seen the stone...because that is a huge thing. If someone has seen a stone and loves it, then fabulous! The #''s are no slouch. BUT there are other options out there too and part of what PS is about is KNOWLEDGE and sharing that knowledge. People come here because they want to learn more or hear about options.

Options are a beautiful thing.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 10/16/2006 2:30:57 PM
Author: studiorack
My personal opinion is that I wouldn''t go with a large G. I''ve been shopping the same carat range as you for the last couple of weeks. I''ve seen a couple of other AGS0 and excellent cut 2ct G''s and the color is very obvious through the pavillion. F''s are borderline at that size. I think you''re on the right track with the E. Scores high on the HCA and it''s a great price compared to market. I''d suggest making arrangements to take a look at it.

From what I''ve seen, it''s hard to find a stone that scores Ex on all four for the HCA. When it does, the PS vendors want a premium for it. I''ve looked at stones that have 3Ex and 1Vg and there was no difference observed. Keep in mind that the HCA is a ''work in progress''. Conceivably you could be paying a premium for 4ex''s when in the future adjustments to the HCA could kick one of those ex''s to a vg.

You must be supersensitive to color because an F is not going to show color to 99% of people and neither is a G unless you are holding it next to a D, which doesn''t happen often in real life. What kind of light were you looking at the stones in? A large table stone may appear brighter, but ti will not have the fire an ideal cut stone with a smaller table will have.

Oh, and I have never bought from WF (yet) and do not "push" them. I just said I prefered the stone Ellen posted over the other two because I think it is a better cut stone.

 

[mypak]

Date: 10/16/2006 4:02:28 PM
Author: Mara
Studio...your quotes are getting pretty long, you might want to crop out what is relevant to the last quote only.

ANYWAY...no one is pushing WF onto the OP. But someone posted a stone that some of us would definitely consider. What part of ''I would definitely check into the G stone as well'' is pushing a vendor? By all means check out the other PS vendors too. I *also* said above there was another stone, a 2.13 F VS2 that looks promising for $29k. Not from WF.

By all means people should get what makes them happy, that is why people were asking if they have seen the stone...because that is a huge thing. If someone has seen a stone and loves it, then fabulous! The #''s are no slouch. BUT there are other options out there too and part of what PS is about is KNOWLEDGE and sharing that knowledge. People come here because they want to learn more or hear about options.

Options are a beautiful thing.

great points all of them...after lurking/posting for a little while here what i''ve realized is that you''ll never get a unanimous "yes" for any one diamond....so it''s basically a personal choice but it''s great that we can use these forums as sort of a sanity check to bounce ideas/comments off each other...