Unsure of my recent (long-desired) Hearts on Fire purchase

[tjcarst]

Three years ago I purchased a .844 H/SI2 diamond solitaire that I liked a lot. It showed wonderful fire when it was clean, but wasn't as clear as I'd hoped.

Two years ago I purchasede a gorgeouse 10-stone Hearts on Fire 2.00 cttw ring G-H/VS1-VS2. So sparkly and breathtaking.

I decided I wanted the solitaire to be just as brilliant and purchased a .872 H/SI1 Hearts on Fire diamond. The Brilliance Scope showed Very High (off the right edge of chart) for White light and Color light and middle of the High category for scintillation.

At the store, it was very flashy, of course. But visiting some of my favorite rooms/stores for their favorable lighting that made my rings sparkle doesn't impress me. My other non-ideal diamond seemed to have more fire, but less light return.

Have I just not found the right lighting? I can see the arrows in normal light conditions. Am I just too picky? Does the diamond need very High in all lighting condiditions in order to provide the best scintillation/brilliance/fire - whatever it is that makes me so happy?

Anyone with an opinion here, please share. I'm so sick with myself.

tjcarst

 

[headlight]

For clarification, what did you mean when you said, "...but wasn't as clear as I hoped", and "...other non-ideal diamond seemed to have more fire, but less light return".

 

[tjcarst]

Well, the original diamond seemed to emit rainbow-like flashes in some situations, but it kind of had a milky appearance in the center when a bit dirty.

This new diamond is as clear as can be, but doesn't seem to emit the same or even close rainbow like prisms in the same lighting conditions. I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of the rainbow prisms. In fluorescent lighting conditions, the Hearts on fire flashes white light off of the angles of the diamond and in rooms with incandescent lights it flashes colorful light. But the supermarket and a few of the other shopping places I used to love for the ability to gaze at my dimaond don't seem as impressive.

The original diamond was very nice when clean, but the 59% table may have been a bit big. The cut polish and symmetry was graded as excellent, but the proportions were not ideal. My amatuer eyes see some qualities in both diamonds to value....

I think it may be too soon to make a decision.

tjcarst

 

[valeria101]

Sounds like a textbook case of Garry's theory about fire and brillinance. Look up the topic "fire enemy of brilliance" here and among the Idealscope newsletters on ideal-scope.com. There surely is an explanation for what you see

Since this is a HOF diamond, do you have the proportions of the cut ( = table, depth, crown and pavilion angles, crown and pavilion depth) on some certificate? It would be interesting to see them here

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 10/19/2004 9:04:26 PM tjcarst wrote:

My eyes see some qualities in both diamonds to value....

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

You are sooooo very right to say this.

Pricescope wisedom (meaning some study about diamond optics, as usual) predicts that some diamonds can do both right. Wouldn't that be great

There is something called "fiery ideal cut". Were you looking for one when buying the HOF ?


Btw. the "milky" spot appearing in the non-ideal round sounds like 'fish eye' to me (LINK). Is it anything like this (LINK) ? Just curious. You seem to look for such fine detail in these stones

 

[headlight]

Perhaps the difference in the "clear v. milky" appearance is attributed to the SI2 versus SI1 clarity... as well as perhaps higher quality cut??? I understand what you mean, though, as my non-ideal SI2 sometimes appears less "clear" than I want.


It is interesting that your stone that supposedly didn't have the same "performance" qualities actually performs better than the ideal stone.


This must be very frustrating because while you were hoping to maintain size but upgrade cut quality, you seemed to have just exchanged one set of characteristics for another... where you gained you also lost and vice-versa.


Sort of makes me wonder how much "less" the non-ideals are, or are they just "different"???


Also, I didn't think 59% table was so overtly large.


Wish I could offer more help, but I don't have an ideal, branded stone to compare mine to and then give you my impressions/experiences of each.


For me, purchasing diamonds has been an exercise in trade-offs -- given that there is always a budget restraint involved, I can perhaps get "this" and "that", but not "the other", and it seems that even with the ideal it is still the case. Perhaps this particular HoF was of lesser quality that slipped by??? I know of someone else who had a non-ideal and then got a HoF and LOVED the HoF.


I wish I could offer more help

 

[tjcarst]

Thanks everyone.

Yes, I have a certificate with measurements. It is an AGS:
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Table: 56%
Overall Depth: 61.5%
Crown Angle: 34%
Crown Height: 15%
Pavillion Angle: 40.8%
Pavillion Depth: 43%
Girdle: FAceted 1.5% - 2.0%
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
SI1: There are two crystals in one of the kite facets at 9 o'clock and one smaller one further out in an upper girdle facet at 1o'clock. A miniscule needle in a meeting point of lower girdle facets. Nothing under the table.

Yes, the original diamond does look like fisheye a bit. Granted, I don't see it in such magnified conditions, but the overall effect seems to be that of fisheye. I had no idea there was such a thing as fiery ideal cut, but that describes what I want.

My original diamond cost me $2,650, Hearts on Fire cost me $7,200. Ouch! Maybe this is why I expected more. Maybe I was just lucky on my first diamond. I have no cert on it, so no idea what it really has for measurements for comparison.

tjcarst

 

[headlight]

How long ago did you buy this stone? Is there still a return/upgrade window available to you? Is this why you are questioning it? If there is no recourse at this point, then just enjoy the stone and be glad you own such a top-of-the line branded solitaire and matching diamond band.


But, if you have recourse and are this unhappy, you should pursue it. Honestly, approx. .80 for over $7k seems very steep! It is worth it if you are totally ecstatic, but you clearly are not. This is not okay.


Can you post pics of all your rings so we can see what they look like?

 

[tjcarst]

This is indeed why I am having misgivings and looking for advice in this forum.

I just bought it Friday. I have 30 days and my original diamond is still at the jeweler. This is indeed why I am so uncertain.

It really isn't about owning the highest grade diamond if it doesn't please my eye and make me feel all warm and fuzzy when I look at it. I don't care much what the papers say if the sparkle doesn't make me catch my breath. I have viewed other Hearts on Fire diamonds and maybe wrongly assumed they'd all have the same fire.

I wear the 10-stone band on my right hand and don't have a Hearts on Fire mounting on the left, just the diamond in the solitaire is a Hearts on Fire. The diamonds match, if you consider they are all Hearts on Fire. But they don't match if you consider their sparkle. Someday I'd hoped to buy two 5/8 Hearts on Fire side stones and make a three stone for the left OR buy the Felicity graduated mount with 12 small diamonds totalling 1.00 carat to surround this diamond. But I am still unsure of this diamond. The 10 small stones on my right hand far outsparkle the solitaire on my left. Maybe it is unfair to compare the two. This may be the root of my problem. There are so many facets sparkling on the ten small diamonds it is almost blinding. Absolultely breathtaking. In hindsight, I wish I 'd just bought the 10 stone as my wedding band 3 years ago and bypassed the big solitaire I'd always dreamed of owning. I like it that much. A word of advice maybe for someone looking for something non-traditional.

tjcarst

 

[headlight]

So, I assume you used your former stone in trade toward the upgrade. I would suggest you go back to your jeweler and explain exactly what you did here at PS. You have the 30-day window, so you are full within your right to do so. I think your two options are to either just take your old stone back and get yoru money refunded, or, before you do that why don't you let them bring you in some other HoF stones within your size, clarity and color specs and see if those are more like the other HoF stones you've seen in the past. And then if those are still not "grabbing" you, then take back your old stone and keep looking -- nothing lost in the process but a little time.


$7k+ for a .80+ stone is a lot of money and they should be more than happy to accommodate you. You already have the HoF band, and now you are (trying) getting the HoF solitaire... a smart local jeweler will want to do right by you so you can get the HoF earrings and HoF pendant, etc. to add to your collection.

 

[tjcarst]

It is nearly .90 carat, but still very expensive at over $7,000. I just believed I was getting the sparkliest diamond my money could buy. That's why I did not go for a full carat, I thought I'd get a sparklier diamond rather than a big diamond.

My local jeweler knows I am uncertain and is holding my other diamond. It was intended to be mounted as a pendant, although I was thinking of using it as a trade to lower my cost. Now I don't know what I want. I haven't asked him to get in any more HoF stones. He ordered in several before thinking this one would please me. Most rate 2 High and 1 Very High on the Brilliance Scope and he noted there were 2 Very High. To his eye, he believed it to be one of the nicer HoF diamonds he's seen. I normally trust his opinion. Again, it may be too soon for me to tell. I'm comparing the solitaire to the 10 small stones and it may be unfair.

If I do want to get other stones in to view, I do not anticipate any problems from my jeweler. It is just hard to see them in the normal lighting conditions outside of the jeweler and mounted in my ring. This diamond was fabulous at the jewelry store in incandescent light and fluorescent light.

I don't have a means to post pictures of my rings. I have a scanner, but no camera capable of producing pictures of a high quality. That Canon digital camera I wanted would sure be handy now.....

tjcarst

 

[tjcarst]

valeria101 - Did you get a chance to look at the dimensions from the cert? How do they look?

Can someone tell me how to determine the HCA of this dimaond?

Thanks.

tjcarst

 

[headlight]

Just go to the top of this page, and click on "tools". Then, click on "cut advisor" and it is really easy and self-explanatory how to insert your stone's specs and it will pop out the HCA score.

 

[headlight]

Okay, I just enterred it in for you and the score is a 1! It received "excellent" in the categories of Light Return, Fire, and Scintillation, and a "very good" in the category of Spread. Thus, its total visual performance is a "1-Excellent within TIC Range". It also verified that it is within AGS0 range. The TIC stones have a good balance of both the brilliance and the fire, whereas BIC are the more brilliant stones and the FIC are the more fiery ones. This is all explained on the linked tutorial from the cut advisor window.

 

[tjcarst]

Thanks, headlight!

I would have done that myself and saved you the work. I posted at home and then was swamped at work until now. Your time is appreciated.

I really need to get out and see this diamond in some other lighting conditions. Mainly, my time with it has been at work where there are nothing but florescents and at home. A coworker noticed it today in fluorescent lighting. Maybe it is just me.

Thanks for your opinions.

tjcarst

 

[Thegroom]

Most likely your diamond performs beautifully. A super ideal diamond should not be expected to show fire in every lighting situation. In lighting that emphasizes the brilliance of your diamond (diffuse fluorescent lighting for example), the white light will mask the fire and your diamond should look very white. In lighting that emphasizes fire (jewelry store, diffuse sunlight, etc.) you will see less brilliance and the fire will be much more apparent. Your original diamond was likely a poorer cut and hence was not very brilliant in most lighting conditions. Without the brilliance there to mask the fire, you were able to see the colored light in many more lighting situations. Many people expect to see fire in all situations in their super ideal diamonds, and from what I have leaned here, that's just not the case. Every lighting environment will bring out a different one of your stones personalities. I say enjoy them all.

 

[headlight]

----------------
On 10/20/2004 7:14:02 PM Thegroom wrote:





Your original diamond was likely a poorer cut and hence was not very brilliant in most lighting conditions. Without the brilliance there to mask the fire, you were able to see the colored light in many more lighting situations.----------------

Sort of makes me wonder what, then, is the purpose of the ideal cut???

 

[Mara]

This sounds like a classic case of different cut diamonds appearing differntly to the naked eye. Not everyone wants a superideal cut stone with arrows you can see in regular lighting. Some people don't like that as much as something that others may consider out of the ideal range but to their eye appeals to them more.

I had a BIC, with a 61% table that was in no way ideal on any chart known to man. It was borderline fish-eye too most likely and definitely looked really white and sparkled white alot of the time but it was really lacking any color in the darn thing.

I gave that one up and got a TIC almost H&A stone with knockout AGS0 numbers, crystal clear arrows images and a very hot idealscope image. It's perfect in every way to me (except size..hehe) and it took me a while to get used to it. I tried not to compare them as equals because they were NOT. The new stone has more fire to it and it does things in lighting situations that the other stone did not. And vice versa. This new stone doesn't always appear as white and sparkly, it looks more colorful.

In the end I adore my new stone and would never go back to a BIC cut, there were more things lacking in that stone than I realized at the time. I love seeing the arrows in my stone in random lighting conditions but I can see how others could say that it seemed odd to see a pattern in a stone rather than all sorts of sparkles all the time.

So you are in a learning curve with your new stone. Smaller stones or eternity band stones are not the same, they have other diamonds that act in conjunction to add more sparkle which you don't always get with a solitaire. That is one diamond acting on it's own.

Maybe you are not a superideal person after all, but there are going to be plusses and minuses to both stones..you just have to figure out which one appeals to you in more situations and then run with it. Good luck!

 

[headlight]

I think Mara said it best -- great advice!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Mara the reason your bIc lacked fire was more because it had very long lower girdles = very thin stars in ideal-scope image

 

[Lynn B]

I think The Groom and Mara have given you some superb advice. I also think you most likely have an amazing, gorgeous stone!

I also want to point out that smaller diamonds will look/perform different than larger diamonds - even when both are ideally cut. From my small .05 ACA's I see lots of "sparkle" of color; from my AGS0 1.53, I see big, bold "flashes" of color. It surprised me at first -- now I have learned that I love BOTH of "the looks".

Lynn

 

[alexah]

$7200 is a lot if you're not absolutely thrilled w it...
you know you can get a beautiful, brilliant, sparkly stone w/out paying for so much for the brand name... (just so you don't think you're pigeonholed into HoF to get a great performing stone)

just three examples

1. SC 1.11 H SI1 for $6K which scores v high in brill/fire/scint (1.5 HCA).
2. GOG 1.015 H SI1 ~ $5700 (1.3 HCA).
3. WF 1.01 H SI1 for $5182 before PS discount (.7 HCA).

I apologise if I'm adding further confusion tjcarst...

 

[flowergurl]

Garry: Do all BIC's lack fire for the most part? Because I have one (1.2 HCA) and I think it's very firey. More so under certain lighting conditions than others of course, but overall I'm very happy with it. It returns a lot of light even in dark conditions, and still has a lot of fire and scintillation. It's not a super-ideal cut, but I'm completely happy with it. I really didn't notice much difference when I compared it to one. Am I just biased towards my own diamond?

 

[tjcarst]

Thanks, everyone for your advice.

Mara and Thegroom, you both have very good points for consideration. I believe I love this diamond's qualities and am happy with my purchase. I just needed to adjust.

Alexia, you weren't adding to my confusion. I've purchased on the internet in the past and have always come away disappointed. I returned the diamonds with no hassle, but it is quite gut-wrenching to go through the ordeal of anticipation, appraisal, disappointment, and stress at the thought that you may not get your $$ back. I have a very good relationship with my jeweler. We run into each other occasionally outside of the jewelry store and don't even talk about jewerly but rather family, friends, things that are going on in the community. Call it loyalty, I guess. I don't feel I am being taken advantage of at all, and am aware that I pay a premium for the branded HoF. I keep encouraging him to get the store to carry other ideal diamonds.....

I've since had a chance to get out a bit and see my diamond in different lighting conditins - and have it cleaned. I was afraid to clean it right away, thinking that it must be much cleaner just coming from the jeweler. I think the guy who set the stone must not have put it through a very thorough cleaning or something. When I went in to my jeweler, it wasn't all that bad, still fiery and brilliant, but when he put it in the cleaner and I saw it, it was soooooooo fiery it was breathtaking.

While there, I was still debating on what to do with my original stone. I can still trade it in towards this one OR keep it as a pendant for now and trade it in later on two 1/2 carat HoF to make the 3-stone ring that I have always wanted.

I looked at two matching H-SI1 HoF diamonds and am still debating. They aare $2,195 each and have the following specs that I would like an opinion on whether they are a good enough match for my .872 HoF solitaire/center:

Diamond 1 Diamond 2
HCA 1.4 HCA 1.1

Table 54% 56%
Crown Angle 34.5% 33.9%
Pavillion Angle 40.8% 40.9%
Depth 62.0% 61.3%
Culet pointed pointed
Girdle 1.4-2% ???
Dimensions 5.00x5.03x3.11 5.03x5.05.3.09


tjcarst

 

[tjcarst]

Okay - I scanned my rings, the images aren't the best. This is the Hearts on Fire solitaire that I wasn't sure about. I love it now, after a good cleaning it is soooooo fiery.

I looked at two matching H-SI1 HoF diamonds and am still debating on making my solitaire into a 3-stone ring. The side stones are $2,195 each and have the following specs that I would like an opinion on whether they are a good enough match for my .872 HoF solitaire/center:

Center Stone
HCA 1
Carat: .872
Table: 56%
Overall Depth: 61.5%
Crown Angle: 34%
Crown Height: 15%
Pavillion Angle: 40.8%
Pavillion Depth: 43%
Girdle: Faceted 1.5% - 2.0%
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Dimensions: 6.14x6.16x3.78

Diamond 1
HCA: 1.4
Carat weight: .476
Table: 54%
Crown Angle: 34.5%
Pavillion Angle: 40.8%
Depth: 62.0%
Culet: pointed
Girdle: 1.4-2%
Dimensions: 5.00x5.03x3.11

Diamond 2
HCA: 1.1
Carat weight: .478
Table: 56%
Crown Angle: 33.9%
Pavillion Angle: 40.9%
Depth: 61.3%
Culet: pointed
Girdle: ??? forgot to write down
Dimensions: 5.03x5.05.3.09

Center stone at bottom pic (the other is my right hand ring).

 

[tjcarst]

Here's a side shot. They are a little worn, as I've had them for a couple of years, but you get the idea. The little nubs on the solitaire are to keep it from rotating to the side of my finger, not the prettiest, but they do the job.

tjcarst

 

[headlight]

Wow... they sure are pretty. And your new center stone -- even from the side it is full of flashes of colors, yet still so "clear"!


That's great that the sizing bars are working for you; they were too uncomfortable for me to get over my enlarged knuckle.


Beautiful solitaire mounting, BTW. But, I am the first to go nuts over three-stone rings, so it will be a nice change and be GORGEOUS.


So happy you are at peace with this decision/purchase!

 

[tjcarst]

Thanks, headlight.

What do you think about the side stones? One has a 54 table and one 56. HCA 1.1 and 1.4. Will this be a noticeable difference? They seem to be a good match to me. I prefer larger sidestones than .47, like .55+ but with a center stone of .87, maybe it is better size. They are the same color and clarity in other terms.

tjcarst

 

[headlight]

Honestly, I do not think you could've found two stones that are a better match for your center diamond! They match on clarity and color (color being the first thing to match for), and they have practically the same HCA scores, so they are great matches in terms of cut (the sides will rival that of your center stone), and the size is perfect. When creating an all round three stone ring, I think it best to have the side stones half the carat weight of the center stone. This "formula" doesn't work for all the shapes, like with trillions since their weight is all in the table. But, I used to have an all round three stone that I had made and the center was 1.51 and the sides were .70 and .72. My sister-in-law has an all emerald cut three stone in which she has the same formula of a carat for the center and half-carats on each side. Both of these rings looked proportionally excellent. (But, as I said it doesn't work with all shapes as my current three stone is a 3.29 center with .75 TOTAL carat weight in side trills yet maintains that proportion that I think looks best).


tjcarst -- this three-stone ring with the stones you've selected is going to be so amazing... I am seriously so envious of you I can't begin to tell you -- I've been thinking about your GORGEOUS diamonds! My advice is to have a fire extinguisher on hand because that ring is going to be one hell of a FIREBALL!!!

 

[tjcarst]

Thanks, headlight. Your opinion is truly appreciated on those sidestones. I am so thrilled that you think this ring is going to be fabulous. But, it sounds like you have a wonderful ring, too. That 3.29 center must be amazing to look at. I should be the one feeling envy.

I just wish I could modify my solitaire setting to have the side stones. I'll see if the manufacturer offeres a three stone version. I love its simplicity and the reversed two tone color. My stone is white enough that I am able to mount it in yellow gold. I love that.When you look down you notice the white band and white diamond and 4 pinpoints of yellow on the corners. It almost appears to be a square stone, but isn't. And I love that the thickness of the band is almost as wide as the diamond. I know this may make the diamond look smaller, but I love the boldness of it.

I also like that all three stones are mounted at nearly the same height. I don't like the center to be raised much higher. Mark Morrel had a diamond and sapphire 3 stone ring that I admire. I don't mind that the side stones compete for attention with the center. I like the all-over sparkly look of the entire ring (like my right hand ring). I like it so much that I considered the Felicty HoF setting, but it is so similar then to my right hand ring. And it has a matching 7-stone wedding band to add even more sparkle. I think the three stone will be all over sparkly if I get large enough side stones and it would be different in that it isn't a lot of small sparkly stones, but rather a few large ones. BUT, I also like the simplicity of just the solitaire. Decisions, decisions....

tjcarst

Hearts on Fire Felicity Graduated Ring - click here for movie