Tiffany''s... does this diamond meet the discriminating standars?

[Diamond NewB]

I''ve done some research and I''ve got a decent idea of what I''m looking for and where I''m looking to purchase from, but I''m looking for some expert validation on the following possible ring:

Round Brilliant
Size: 1.47 carats
Color: G
Clarity: VVS2
Depth % total: 62.5
Table size %: 54
Crown Angle: 35.4
Pavilion Depth %: 43.2
Girdle: Slightly Thick
Culet: None
Symmetry/Polish: Excellent/Excellent

I ran it on through the "cut advisor" and it came up as a "2.7" or Very Good. It shines quite nicely but are these specs up to the standards for a somewhat descriminating purchaser? Especially if this ring is from Tiffany''s? I was hoping it would come up as Excellent across the board (I realize the cut advisor is only a guide and tool that is a work in progress).

I hope not to stir the debate about, "is the blue box worth the mark up..." that poor horse has been dead for a long time after far too many beatings. I''m just wondering if these stats (on the cut) are up to snuff when dealing with the higher end retailers? I do not believe that these numbers do not reflect an "Ideal" cut when compared to the AGA standards.

So what are people''s thoughts on the diamond? Any help, advise, or even criticism is welcomed.

 

[neatfreak]

I'd pass. You ideally want a stone under 2 on the HCA, which while not a SELECTION tool, is an excellent weeding out tool. So this stone wouldn't pass for me. Sorry.

It's pretty deep too, so might be facing up a bit small for it's size.

 

[Independent Gal]

See if Tiffany can find you a diamond with specs that will come in under 2 on the HCA. It''s just a weeding tool, but over 2 means ''probably a weed''. If you''re going Tiffany, why not make them find you a stone that''s the very best you can get, cut-wise?

And YES high end retailers sell badly cut stones. On Signed Pieces you can see the GIA certs of a lot of Tiff, Cartier, Bulgari etc. diamonds and they are way more often closer to ''very good'' cut than ''excellent'' and I''ve seen a couple that were REALLY sketchy.

Tell them to find you a perfect stone! Demand some serious customer service with your blue box!

 

[Diamond NewB]

Thanks for the feedback. Sadly not what I wanted to hear... but I appreciate the honest responses.

 

[Independent Gal]

Hey, unless you''re in a serious hurry, I think Tiffany should be able to take care of you. Just call them and say you want a diamodn within the following table, depth %, pavillion etc. ranges and of X colour and Y clarity, in Z-A ct range. They''ll do the hunting for you!

 

[Nicrez]

Date: 8/28/2007 1:20:47 PM
Author:Diamond NewB
I've done some research and I've got a decent idea of what I'm looking for and where I'm looking to purchase from, but I'm looking for some expert validation on the following possible ring:

Round Brilliant
Size: 1.47 carats
Color: G
Clarity: VVS2
Depth % total: 62.5
Table size %: 54
Crown Angle: 35.4
Pavilion Depth %: 43.2
Girdle: Slightly Thick
Culet: None
Symmetry/Polish: Excellent/Excellent

I ran it on through the 'cut advisor' and it came up as a '2.7' or Very Good. It shines quite nicely but are these specs up to the standards for a somewhat descriminating purchaser? Especially if this ring is from Tiffany's? I was hoping it would come up as Excellent across the board (I realize the cut advisor is only a guide and tool that is a work in progress).

I hope not to stir the debate about, 'is the blue box worth the mark up...' that poor horse has been dead for a long time after far too many beatings. I'm just wondering if these stats (on the cut) are up to snuff when dealing with the higher end retailers? I do not believe that these numbers do not reflect an 'Ideal' cut when compared to the AGA standards.

So what are people's thoughts on the diamond? Any help, advise, or even criticism is welcomed.

Now do me a favor and head back to Tiffany's for a little experiment of my own. Go back and have the sales person get you a stone that scores higher on the HCA and have them bring out that "2.7" but don't let them tell you specs. Pick out the one you think is nicer and if it happens to be the one with a lower score on the cut advisor, buy it. If not, it proves my theory that although it is a helpful tool for very particular refinement of selection when dealing with online shopping, the average joe will almost likely not see any visual difference in such a stone, because neither do they have the laboratory atmosphere, the training nor the NEED for such a precision. If you are there LOOK at the stone that speaks to you, but likely they are all pretty much the same thing. That is the beauty of spending almost twice the price for a T&Co stone. They did the work for you already so you shouldn't really be able to detect one stone from the other based on cut, even though these are all very individual stones each...

But I am beating my own dead horse here. I respect men who try and take this decision to buy a diamond as training in precision and details, but if you are shopping at a luxury retailer, such as these, look at the stone and see which one speaks to you. If you have the chance to SEE the stone you will buy, then determine it based on that. Any more research and exacting, will not be useful if you yourself can not SEE it. And in the end, the Tiffany stamp will be more likely understood compared to the HCA cut grade you got when speaking to friends or family. When reselling they won't care if it's 2.7 or 1.0, that band and it's paperwork will be sold based on the entire piece and it's brand.

If you are buying a stone online I would say find the best stone you can and use all tools you need, but in my opinion, if you can't SEE the difference, you aren't getting anything all that different...Which is why people here will tell you if it's not a cultural thing, don't get an IF, because if you can't see it, it's not necessary...

 

[Diamond NewB]

Now that''s a solid idea. Appreciate the good advise from all.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

well, I understand what nicrez is saying and too a degree I would agree. I would say to request some diamonds that fall under the AGS Ideal, GIA excellent, and are under 2 on the HCA, then compare them side by side. If you cant see a difference--well the price is not giong to change based on cut especially since they are both probably already labeled as Excellent by tiffany and Tif doesnt really operate that way in my experience.

However, the research that has been done by those three groups is very real, and based on very notewotrhy scientific thoughts. Light performance is not all just about what it looks like in the store. It what it lokos like under 10, 20, 30 differentl ighting environments, its how the diamond will perform when she is typing in the buttons on her Navigation system, when she looks at her watch on the way to work, and when she takes it off to clean up in the evening. Not all of those lighting environments are giong to consist of hundreds of pinpoint lights overhead, and there is simply no way for you to test out and compare the diamonds in all of the necessary lighting environments.

That cut research is based on light performance in a variety of lighting conditions, and it is designed to give you maximum light performance based on extensive scientific analysis. While that might not be noticable in the tiffany store it might be noticable under normal living conditions, due to various lighting as mentioned above, the diamond becoming dirty and a variety of other conditions, then there is also the matter of distance being observed, its conceivable that the better the light performance the more clear and brillian the white light return and fire will be and thus the farther away you would notice the diamonds performance which would in turn lead to more compliments from friends/coworkers? so it is a very real possiblity that a diamond may performe more beautifuly in a wider range of conditions and be more noticable because of a better cut, BUT those differences may simply not be able to be seen under optimum conditions such as brand spanking new at the Tiffany store.

So, while side by side comparisons are great, if you are talking about a shape where the science of the cut has been scrutinized, analyzed and torn apart with hundreds of years of research I say you should pay attention to that research and what it has to say, even if Tiffany&Co offers diamonds that dont quite meet those specifications.

After all, it might take a little more effort and paitence on your part to find the diamond, but thats about all it should cost you, you are already paying the Tif premium and they wont charge you more to do it so why not go for the Ideal & Excellent & HCA lower than 2 parameters??



(obviously if there is somethign particular you are lookign for like a special shape or facet patterning then that would be a different story, but if its a modern round brilliant, I say trust both your eyes and the science, and if your eyes cant discern the difference at Tif. then for sure stick to the science!)

 

[FireGoddess]

In light of the fact that the stone scores a 2.6 on the HCA, I found this article interesting (see 'Limitations of the HCA'). Talking about stones slightly over 2 that can still look very good. A lot to digest though.

I think it would be worth it to do Nicrez's experiment. But I'm a scientist at heart.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/28/2007 4:53:43 PM
Author: Nicrez

Now do me a favor and head back to Tiffany''s for a little experiment of my own. Go back and have the sales person get you a stone that scores higher on the HCA and have them bring out that ''2.7'' but don''t let them tell you specs. Pick out the one you think is nicer and if it happens to be the one with a lower score on the cut advisor, buy it. If not, it proves my theory that although it is a helpful tool for very particular refinement of selection when dealing with online shopping, the average joe will almost likely not see any visual difference in such a stone, because neither do they have the laboratory atmosphere, the training nor the NEED for such a precision. If you are there LOOK at the stone that speaks to you, but likely they are all pretty much the same thing. That is the beauty of spending almost twice the price for a T&Co stone. They did the work for you already so you shouldn''t really be able to detect one stone from the other based on cut, even though these are all very individual stones each...

But I am beating my own dead horse here. I respect men who try and take this decision to buy a diamond as training in precision and details, but if you are shopping at a luxury retailer, such as these, look at the stone and see which one speaks to you. If you have the chance to SEE the stone you will buy, then determine it based on that. Any more research and exacting, will not be useful if you yourself can not SEE it. And in the end, the Tiffany stamp will be more likely understood compared to the HCA cut grade you got when speaking to friends or family. When reselling they won''t care if it''s 2.7 or 1.0, that band and it''s paperwork will be sold based on the entire piece and it''s brand.

If you are buying a stone online I would say find the best stone you can and use all tools you need, but in my opinion, if you can''t SEE the difference, you aren''t getting anything all that different...Which is why people here will tell you if it''s not a cultural thing, don''t get an IF, because if you can''t see it, it''s not necessary...

That is a great test to do Nicrez. Why not as many of you as are game do the same test at Tiffany?

But the part of the test that you can not do there is compare the HCA2.7 and 1.0 after the stones are dirty. In that case there will be a larger appearance in the HCA1.0 because there will be more light return from the outer crown side upper girdle facets after they have a little dirt on them. Any one can see that in most lighting types with same carat weight stones.

The three seperate photo''s of the 2 stones in these earrings in an experiment I did a year or 3 ago. Drena wore them for a few days. The better looking stone is shallow, the one that shows the dirt is pretty close to text book ideal. With a deeper steeper stone like your Tiffany example the dirt becomes even more apparent.

 

[hearts-arrows_girl]

You should have Tiffany''s bring in some more stones for you to look at. It would be great to have "The Blue Box" AND an Excellent performing stone. I too think the stone you described is a little deep. I was on a stricter budget, but heh! if my husband had said, "Let''s go to Tiffany''s!" I would have been in the car before he got through with his sentence. I think what ever B/M you go to, it is easiest for the saleperson to try to get you to buy what''s in stock, than to have to have other stones transferred in for you. They may feel you may buy from somewhere else while they are doing your stone search. So I would insist on the best cut stone you could afford and I am sure they will find it if you give them a little nudge to do more research for you. The stone you described sounds like it is probably very nice, but if it were me and I was going the extra mile to buy from Tiffany''s, I would completely go the extra mile and get the best cut too.

 

[Ty Cobb]

I agree with Nicerez, HCA is a good tool for comparing stones that you can''t see. However, the thing I did washave them Tifs bring in several rings and I bought the one that looked the best to me.

Now granted, you should get some ideas of the range of proportions for the stone you are looking for. I didn''t see any of the ones I was interested in that were out of proportion.

Again it comes down to what stone speaks to you. When you can actually see the stones in person, HCA isn''t such a big deal. If a stone looks good to you, it will keep looking good to you.

Yes there is the concern about the lights in Tiffs, however, every Tiffs I have ever been in has hug windows facing north, and it is quite easy to lok at the rings in daylight without being fooled by the lighting.

If you are really worried about it take a scope with you. Though I have never felt the need to scope a tiffs stone.

There was a whole thread about 2 months ago debating this. Look it up.