Trying Again-Watta Ya think of this one?

[aldo]

Hi all! Originally purchase this diamond. GIA cert, round brilliant, .89,G color, SI1,Thn-Med girdle, no flour,no culet,good polish,very good sym,55 table,61.8 depth with Sarin crown 33.6 degrees and pavilion 40.7 degrees. Scored a .8 on the HCA using the angle degrees and scored a 1.7 HCA using the crown and pavilion percentages. Got some great feedback from y''all.But did not love it. It lacked fire. Great white sparkle. No color. Just goes to show the numbers don''t always give the whole picture .So I have now placed the following gem on hold till I get my purchase credit. Check it out and tell me what you think.
http://www.goodoldgold.com/o_86ct_h_si1_h_%26a.htm

PS.I''m not paying the list price. Johnatan and Marie have been great so far. Scored a 1.4 on HCA and 1A at gemappraisers. Looks like a winner. But again my eyes will be the final judge.

Comments please!

 

[squirerad]

More likely than not to have great fire. Congrats on the purchase, looks like a winner

.

squire

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 6/22/2004 5:08:58 PM aldo wrote:





Hi all! Originally purchase this diamond. GIA cert, round brilliant, .89,G color, SI1,Thn-Med girdle, no flour,no culet,good polish,very good sym,55 table,61.8 depth with Sarin crown 33.6 degrees and pavilion 40.7 degrees. Scored a .8 on the HCA using the angle degrees and scored a 1.7 HCA using the crown and pavilion percentages. Got some great feedback from y'all.But did not love it. It lacked fire. Great white sparkle. No color. Just goes to show the numbers don't always give the whole picture .----------------

Aldo, the numbers in this scenario DO suggest that this stone wouldn't be strong on fire. The crown/pavilion combo in this instance suggests a stone with good white light, but not great colored light. If the crown angle had be 34.6 instead of 33.6, then you'd get the fire here. But the crown angle is too shallow to produce must colored fire when coupled with that particular pavilion angle.

 

[aldo]

Thanks for the comments guys. Any more comments on this diamond? I'd greatly appreciate the feedback.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/o_86ct_h_si1_h_%26a.htm

Thanks again!

 

[aljdewey]

The link to the diamond you're asking about doesn't work. I tried last night and again at noon today......page cannot be found.

 

[researcher]

I couldn't get the link to work either. Please post it again!

 

[kevinng]

This must be it:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/0_86ct_h_si1_h%26a.htm

 

[aldo]

Sorry about the bad link. it's this one:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/0_86ct_h_si1_h%26a.htm

Let me know whatcha think?

 

[quaeritur]

Hi Aldo-

from the brilliancescope, it sure looks like it has plenty of fire! As long as it's eye clean (I'm sure GOG can describe it for you) I think it looks very nice.

 

[jadeleaves]

----------------
On 6/23/2004 2:02:34 PM aldo wrote:


http://www.goodoldgold.com/0_86ct_h_si1_h%26a.htm

Let me know whatcha think?

----------------

Hi!

I'm sure this particular stone will be fantastic. I know that Jon got this at the vegas convention, and I *nearly* bought it, but picked a G SI1 instead. My appraiser at AGA reckoned he would have graded it a VS2!

You're in good hands with Jon!

Cheers,

Jade.

 

[researcher]

Looks good, but I'd make sure it's eye clean to your standards as the main inclusions are right under the table (at least that's how they look). But, hearing jadeleave's appraiser felt it was more a vs2, you should be in the clear! Jonathan is fantastic, so I'd trust his word--he won't steer you in the wrong direction

 

[aldo]

Thanks for your comments. After returning the first ring I decided to make some concessions. I wanted a stone that "danced" with fire.I believe I may have found it in this stone. I'm still a little concerned about color. I wanted a G but Jon said this H faces very white. Also I wanted somthing a little larger, more in the .90 area, but Jon said that this .86 shows large because it is not depth heavy. Finally I did question him on the inclusions and he assured me that it was eye clean. From the comments on this forum, I feel confident in what he says and I am encouraged by all your comments on this stone. I can't wait to get it. Any comments on the color and size issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. A

 

[GlitterGal]

Hi Aldo,

Wow! This diamond looks unbelievable!

I love the H&A pattern and the IdealScope and Bscope results are fantastic too! I think the size and color will surpass your expectations once you see it.

The main advantages of an AGS0 stone are that it faces up larger and whiter than its non-ideal counterpart. Congrats on your upcoming engagement and on finding a real treasure of a diamond!

Kindest regards always,
Linda

 

[aldo]

Yeah it looks great. Also scored over a 9 on the Isee2 readings. I spoke to Jon again today and was assures it was eye clean and very bright. Just waiting for funds to clear from the one I returned so I can go get this baby. GOG folks have been just great. My GF likes a simple 3mm, thin comfort fit catherdral that tapers to the prongs. WG or Plat. with a lower profile setting. Does not want the diamond to sit high on the ring. The simple but elegant look. I'm thinking 6 prongs for security. Will the extra prongs make a difference in the way the diamond will perform? I was under the impression that 6 pronds make the stone look larger. Any thoughts?

 

[GlitterGal]

Hi Aldo,

Settings are always a matter of personal preference so I think your best bet would be to go with what your fiancée-to-be likes the most. While the additional prongs may add extra security, six prongs would also cover more of the stone, making it look smaller, IMO. Again, it really is all about what she likes best, but I have always tended to suggest a 4-prong for stones under a carat and 6-prongs for those 1 and over.

Can’t wait to see pics of the finished ring!

Kindest regards always,
Linda

 

[aljdewey]

I actually disagree......I do think that the 6 prongs do make stones look larger by emphazing the perimeter of the stone.

 

[quaeritur]

It may just be my eyes, but a friend and I have very similarly cut (ie nearly identical diameter) .50ct engagement ring stones. she has four prongs, i have six. looking at them side-by-side, to my eyes, the four-prong setting makes her stone look marginally larger. My local jeweller (GIA certified gemologist, not just a "maul" guy) feels that the "busier" the setting, the smaller it will make the stone appear. He showed me this with a micro-pave bezel setting vs. a plain platinum bezel setting. The plain one definitely looked much bigger.

I've considered having my ring re-set in a four-prong, but find I really don't want to change anything at all about the ring my sweet husband proposed with -well before either of us knew a thing about cut! Which just means I have to get more right-hand-rings, right?!

 

[kevinng]

How about this one?

http://www.goodoldgold.com/0_90ct_j_vs1_h%26a.htm

Although it's a J colour, it looks like it's better cut... and bigger... with better clarity.
The price looks similar.
Personally, if I were to be the one making the purchase, I would ask Jon which one looks better... Just to have another choice.