Tiffany diamond: HCA says not to buy?

[Scud]

Its a 1.1 carat IVS2, when I plug the numbers in, it says low Pavillion, can cause fish eye...do not buy.

But then reading the forum, some people say these numbers are within range to make the diamond worth considering/even ideal spec wise?

I have not seen this stone yet, I will soon but your thoughts on the numbers and how they look?

D 61.5%
T 57%
CH 15.1%
CA 34.8 (in email they sent it says % but I assume this should be angle?)
P 40.7%


And for comparision, another one I am looking at is also 1.1 carat, HSI1 and it gets a .6 on the HCA. So help me out on if the first one is a dud or not?

D 62.6
T 54%
CH 16.2%
CA 35.2%
P 42.7

Obviously I will have to see them both in person but I want a stone that looks awesome and has good specs! Thanks for the help.

 

[slg47]

Its a 1.1 carat IVS2, when I plug the numbers in, it says low Pavillion, can cause fish eye...do not buy.

But then reading the forum, some people say these numbers are within range to make the diamond worth considering/even ideal spec wise?

I have not seen this stone yet, I will soon but your thoughts on the numbers and how they look?

D 61.5%
T 57%
CH 15.1%
CA 34.8 (in email they sent it says % but I assume this should be angle?)
P 40.7%


And for comparision, another one I am looking at is also 1.1 carat, HSI1 and it gets a .6 on the HCA. So help me out on if the first one is a dud or not?

D 62.6
T 54%
CH 16.2%
CA 35.2%
P 42.7

Obviously I will have to see them both in person but I want a stone that looks awesome and has good specs! Thanks for the help.

the first one is probably the pavilion angle, not %. if 40.7 is the pavilion angle, it scores 1.2. the second one is probably %.

 

[Scud]

I will try to confirm tomorrow but does anyone know how Tiffany quotes the Pavilion? Is it % or angle?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The 40.7 is the pav. angle. The first stone is great! Wouldn't buy the second. Stone is too deep and probably faces up smaller than it should. You omitted diameter measurements and that is something you need to always look at as well.

 

[Scud]

Its a 1.1 carat IVS2, when I plug the numbers in, it says low Pavillion, can cause fish eye...do not buy.

But then reading the forum, some people say these numbers are within range to make the diamond worth considering/even ideal spec wise?

I have not seen this stone yet, I will soon but your thoughts on the numbers and how they look?

D 61.5%
T 57%
CH 15.1%
CA 34.8 (in email they sent it says % but I assume this should be angle?)
P 40.7%


And for comparision, another one I am looking at is also 1.1 carat, HSI1 and it gets a .6 on the HCA. So help me out on if the first one is a dud or not?

D 62.6
T 54%
CH 16.2%
CA 35.2%
P 42.7

Obviously I will have to see them both in person but I want a stone that looks awesome and has good specs! Thanks for the help.

the first one is probably the pavilion angle, not %. if 40.7 is the pavilion angle, it scores 1.2. the second one is probably %.

That would make sense. Strange she would email me the angle for 1 and % for another. Is it possible the first one is % or does that 40.7 have to be angle?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

It is strange that she would do that. I think the first stone makes sense. The second one is too deep so I wouldn't even question her about that one. But before you buy, you have every right to see the cert on the stone. Post it here and we can be sure.

 

[John P]

There is no problem with either stone. The pavilion angle for the first is 40.7 degrees. For the second it's 40.5 degrees (42.7% PD with no culet). Note that a 42.7 angle would fall well outside of T&Co's published diamond acceptance standards.

I anticipate the second stone will spread just slightly smaller in terms of average girdle diameter, but only by about 0.05 mm; not significantly enough to influence the decision for most people in this 6.60(ish) mm range.

Based on the numbers, the second stone will have a slightly different, more "classic" Tiffany look than the first, as a result of the smaller table and increased crown height. T&Co's lower half formula compliments this configuration and it will have dominant, beautifully colored flashes, though it may not be quite as (overall) bright in terms of white light return in some environments.

Both stones would receive GIA EX in proportions (unless GIA rounded the 40.5 of stone #2 down). The first gets a slightly better nod in the AGS light performance metric but Tiffany's cutting goals are tailored to their traditional experience, and not to the modern AGS system which is just looking for more overall "brightness" in the balance of qualities than the second stone's configuration may provide.

T&Co does a tremendous job and either stone will be a standout in terms of performance quality.

 

[Scud]

Thanks John and everyone else. Can you please also give your thoughts on this 3rd one?

1.02 carat, IVS2,
D 62.4%, T 56%, CH 15.7%, CA 35.4%, P 43.2%.
Excellent Brilliant, Excellent symmetry, Excellent polish.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Long time no see, JP!!! Hope you are well!

I am going to beg to differ with you, though. I will not pay for weight hidden in depth even if it is only a small amount! But I'll wait to make a firm statement on that until he posts the numbers! I have had two one carat stones at 6.4mm and 6.5mm and I could certainly see the small difference in size and would buy the 6.5 for sure if offered two stones otherwise equal!

Scud, please include diameter measurements, too, if you want to know how these compare in size.

 

[John P]

No need to beg DS. With typical T&Co cutting I'm thinking the difference will only be along the lines of 6.59 vs 6.63 mm average spread if both diamonds are of identical weight. It will be good if Scud posts the actual numbers to see for certain.

I found this "hidden weight" example to tickle your fancy though...
https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2131453096&weight=0.60#

Nothing like those 66/66 stones, eh?

 

[Scud]

I don't have the dimensions for the 1.1 H stone as it is a little out of my price range anyway but the size for the 1.1 IVS2 is:

6.6 to 6.3 x 4.07

and for the 1.02 posted above is 6.41 to 6.47 x 4.02

 

[ame]

JUST based on the information posted, I preferred this one

D 61.5%
T 57%
CH 15.1%
CA 34.8 (in email they sent it says % but I assume this should be angle?)
P 40.7%


6.6 to 6.3 x 4.07

...til I saw the diamter. Wow, that's a lot less symmetrical than I'd be ok with. Unless you are missing a digit somewhere. John, am I wrong there? That's a pretty big discrepency?

I am someone who would not want a stone with too much weight down below or in the middle either.

 

[ame]

No need to beg DS. With typical T&Co cutting I'm thinking the difference will only be along the lines of 6.59 vs 6.63 mm average spread if both diamonds are of identical weight. It will be good if Scud posts the actual numbers to see for certain.

I found this "hidden weight" example to tickle your fancy though...
https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2131453096&weight=0.60#

Nothing like those 66/66 stones, eh?

ewwie.

 

[John P]

I don't have the dimensions for the 1.1 H stone as it is a little out of my price range anyway but the size for the 1.1 IVS2 is:

6.6 to 6.3 x 4.07

I'm certain it's not 6.60 - 6.30 x 4.07. You might mean 6.66 - 6.63 x 4.07?

and for the 1.02 posted above is 6.41 to 6.47 x 4.02

My dialogue with DS regarded a comparison of mm measurements for the two 1.10ct examples.

I had not seen the 1.02 until now. It is logically in a different spread category. The average of 6.44 is not bad. Some people like to see 6.50 mm in a one-carat stone but that is largely a result of the 60/60 movement of the 1970s-80s. T&Co's traditional parameters go farther back and are typically a bit less than that. It's in their formula for the crown, which in this case is at a 35.4 degree angle, and in the case of the 1.10ct H SI1 is due to the small table.

 

[John P]

Wow, that's a lot less symmetrical than I'd be ok with. Unless you are missing a digit somewhere. John, am I wrong there? That's a pretty big discrepency?

It's a typo unless we've moved to ovals.

I imagine it's 6.66-6.63 rather than 6.6-6.3.

 

[Scud]

I will verify (correct) the numbers when I can. Thanks so much for the help everyone.

 

[ame]

Wow, that's a lot less symmetrical than I'd be ok with. Unless you are missing a digit somewhere. John, am I wrong there? That's a pretty big discrepency?

It's a typo unless we've moved to ovals.

I imagine it's 6.66-6.63 rather than 6.6-6.3.

thats my hope! I was like "wait. there's no way".

 

[diamondseeker2006]

John, I was just wanting to see all the diameters, really. I know you can't really see 6.5 versus 6.55.

But I would prefer a 6.6 over a 6.4 for sure, assuming cut quality is equal and that color, etc. is at an acceptable level, and both are in budget!

 

[John P]

John, I was just wanting to see all the diameters, really. I know you can't really see 6.5 versus 6.55.

But I would prefer a 6.6 over a 6.4 for sure, assuming cut quality is equal and that color, etc. is at an acceptable level, and both are in budget!

Gotcha. And I'm with you. More important; most ladies I know are with you too!

 

[kenny]

John, I was just wanting to see all the diameters, really. I know you can't really see 6.5 versus 6.55.

But I would prefer a 6.6 over a 6.4 for sure, assuming cut quality is equal and that color, etc. is at an acceptable level, and both are in budget!

Gotcha. And I'm with you. More important; most ladies I know are with you too!

I understand size matters, but can women feel an additional 0.2mm?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I found this "hidden weight" example to tickle your fancy though...
https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2131453096&weight=0.60#

Nothing like those 66/66 stones, eh?

Oh, and great stone!! (not!!!)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

John, I was just wanting to see all the diameters, really. I know you can't really see 6.5 versus 6.55.

But I would prefer a 6.6 over a 6.4 for sure, assuming cut quality is equal and that color, etc. is at an acceptable level, and both are in budget!

Gotcha. And I'm with you. More important; most ladies I know are with you too!

I understand size matters, but can women feel an additional 0.2mm?

You're kidding, right, Kenny???

(not in 2 ct. stones, but in 1 ct. or less, yes, it makes a difference.)

 

[John P]

I found this "hidden weight" example to tickle your fancy though...
https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2131453096&weight=0.60#

Nothing like those 66/66 stones, eh?

Oh, and great stone!! (not!!!)

There is a stunningly beautiful 45-pointer trapped inside that monster... Will no one save her?

 

[Scud]

Wow, that's a lot less symmetrical than I'd be ok with. Unless you are missing a digit somewhere. John, am I wrong there? That's a pretty big discrepency?

It's a typo unless we've moved to ovals.

I imagine it's 6.66-6.63 rather than 6.6-6.3.

Assuming it is 6.66-6.63, is this a stone worth considering?

And as to your reaply about the 1.02 stone...it was a little technical for me to follow...is it worth looking at too?

I am a diamond novice and I will of course look at my options in the store but haing a diamond with good stats is also important to me as I have a feeling in person at Tiffany's all these diamonds will look very nice and it will be very tough for me to tell them apart.

 

[ame]

Assuming it is 6.66-6.63, its the one I'd pick of all the options you've given.

 

[John P]

Assuming it is 6.66-6.63, is this a stone worth considering?

Yes.

And as to your reaply about the 1.02 stone...it was a little technical for me to follow...is it worth looking at too?

I am a diamond novice and I will of course look at my options in the store but haing a diamond with good stats is also important to me as I have a feeling in person at Tiffany's all these diamonds will look very nice and it will be very tough for me to tell them apart.

Yes. The 1.02 will be great. Maybe not as universally "high-scoring" across the most modern cut metrics outside of T&Co, but visually a stunner. I'm with the two ladies above though. The 1.10 will certainly appear larger. If they're both in-budget my experience is that ladies generally tend to appreciate that bit of extra size.

(Kenny, please stay away from this post)

 

[Scud]

Thanks so much for the help John. If you don't mind, I will update this thread sometime in the next week when I get some new stones to compare and it would be great for you to help me analyze the numbers and let me know if there are any stones that they bring in that are a definite NO to consider.

 

[ame]

Is this 1.1 we all like out of the running or are you just expecting more to review before you purchase? If this one appeals, it's the one I'd buy and then be done

And yes, I'd rather have a 1.1 than a 1.04. I am not generally a size queen but in this instance it's worth it. Mind clean and all.

 

[Scud]

Is this 1.1 we all like out of the running or are you just expecting more to review before you purchase? If this one appeals, it's the one I'd buy and then be done

And yes, I'd rather have a 1.1 than a 1.04. I am not generally a size queen but in this instance it's worth it. Mind clean and all.

This 1.1 that we like is "in production" and I wont be at the store for a week yet so I am not sure if it will be there for me when I get to the store. I will do my best to try and make sure it is because it seems the specs on it are really good. Thanks also for all the help in this thread ame!

 

[ame]

Is this 1.1 we all like out of the running or are you just expecting more to review before you purchase? If this one appeals, it's the one I'd buy and then be done

And yes, I'd rather have a 1.1 than a 1.04. I am not generally a size queen but in this instance it's worth it. Mind clean and all.

This 1.1 that we like is "in production" and I wont be at the store for a week yet so I am not sure if it will be there for me when I get to the store. I will do my best to try and make sure it is because it seems the specs on it are really good. Thanks also for all the help in this thread ame!

Sure thing, JP and DS deserve equal thanks!

If you can get that one held for when it comes in, do it, you can always release it if something else pops up.