URGENT: Is this a wise purchase?

[wasabi]

i''ve been a lurker on this forum for a few weeks now. have learned quite a bit and am so happy to have read all the advice that everyone has given. now i think i''ve found the rock that i want but i wanted to run it by everyone first. so here are specs:

cert: AGS
carat: 1.71
color: G
clarity: VS2

table:57%
depth:61%
crown <: 34.1
pavillion <: 40.4
crown depth: 14.6%
pavillion depth: 42.3%
gridle: faceted 1.3% to 1.9%
culet: very small
polish: ideal
symmetry: ideal
proportions: ideal

the only thing that concerns me is the pavillion depth seems a bit smaller than ideal (thanks dave for gemappraisers.com, which i used to check the specs). but the hca numbers seem really awesome at .7 ex-ex-ex-vg. so how does pavillion depth affect the appearance of the diamond?

I went to check out the diamond just now and I think this diamond looks really nice. Just one thing, the dealer mentioned that the owner would need to know right away if i would like to purchase it due to the fact that they need to send it out of state (someone else has requested to view it). So I''ve told the dealer that I would purchase it. I haven''t paid for it yet so I really would like some confirmation that I''m not getting ripped off. So I guess I would like to ask the forum what they think of the specs I mentioned above. I''ve done my research but when it comes to the price of the diamond, so many factors influence it. I guess I''m getting anxious since I''ve been saving up for this purchase for awhile and to think that i''ll finally pay up is kind of nerve racking. Since I haven''t gotten any replies to the previous post, I''ll just tell you that the quoted price was $14,500. That''s not chump change so I want to make sure I''m not overlooking something. So to my fellow diamond buyers, let me hear your opinions. Thanks.

jason

 

[aljdewey]

On paper, I'd prefer a slightly deeper pavilion with that crown angle, but I don't think it's a major thing.




You said you've seen the diamond, and you like it, so that's the most important thing by far.




The price seems fair as well.




I've only found one other diamond that I think has more to offer for better money, and that's this one (1.59, G, VS2 with ABSOLUTELY KILLER cut proportions for $12,950) from Whiteflash: http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-665663.htm#




Either way, I don't think you can lose! Congrats.

 

[wasabi]

Thanks aljdewey for your reply. I really appreciate it. I was wondering why you would prefer a deeper pavillion tho? I know from David's site that the ideal pavillion depth should be 42.8%-43.2% but how does this affect the appearance of the diamond? And if pavillion depth is important to appearance, just wondering why this isn't included in the HCA?

 

[aljdewey]

It's not so much the pavilion depth itself.....it's the *relationship* between the crown/pavilion angles.




With a 34.5 crown angle, the optimal pavilion angle is 40.7/40.8/40.9.




40.4 is a bit on the shallow side (hence a bit shallower pavilion), and that could potentially diminish the fire (colored rainbows) the diamond throws off.




Ususally, crown angles of 34.1 (like the diamond you posted) correspond better to pavilion angles of 40.8/40.9/41.0/41.1).




The relationship is like yin/yang....adjusting one means compensating the other to preserve the balance.




That's what I liked about the WF diamond.....it's SMACK in the middle for the best combination of cut proportions. Providing the stone performs the way the numbers suggest it should, I like the proportions on that WF stone.




Your stone also sounds lovely, though, but it's 2K more for only 10-12 points more. I think the other stone is a better cut proportion AND a better value. Having said that, though, it's hard to go wrong with either choice.

 

[wasabi]

aljdewey..2k cheaper and better cut sounds great to me. i just wanted a diamond to be as big as i could get (10-12 isn't that much bigger). thanks for your explanation and insight. but for better understanding, if the cut proportions are better in the whiteflash diamond, how come the HCA number is higher than the one i listed (whiteflash=1.2 to .7)? I just assumed that a lower HCA equals a better proportioned/cut diamond. Is this a wrong assumption?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Hi Jason.

It is a common (and understandable) misperception that closer to 0 = better on HCA. However, once you score less than 2 it's up to individual taste. All diamonds under 2 are HCA "winners."

This is printed on Garry's HCA results page:

"A score below 2 (Excellent) means you have eliminated known poor performers (more than 95% of all diamonds). Your own personal preference may be for a diamond with an HCA score of 1.5 more rather than one with a lower score of say 0.5."

Best wishes,

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 10/19/2004 11:59:55 PM jasonp wrote:





.......... if the cut proportions are better in the whiteflash diamond, how come the HCA number is higher than the one i listed (whiteflash=1.2 to .7)? I just assumed that a lower HCA equals a better proportioned/cut diamond. Is this a wrong assumption?----------------

Yes, it's a wrong assumption. As long as a diamond scores below 2, you've likely eliminated 95% of poor performing diamonds.

Once you're under that 2, it's really a matter of preference. Some like more contrast than others. Think of it as vocal inflection.....some people believe that when a diamonds gets to 0.6 or below on the HCA, it tends to be more monotone. So, lower is not always better.

 

[fire&ice]

Very nice combination. If it speaks to you, I see no red flags.

 

[nicknomo]

I'm going to have to disagree with aljdewey. I think the 1.71 is the better stone. You are paying slightly more per carat, but I still think it's a very nice price for that stone. I think it will look nice and big, and have a shine to match.

I'd go with it.