URGENT: Need expert advice choosing between 2 diamonds!

[Riagain]

It''s getting down to "crunch time" and I need to make a decision SOON between these two diamonds:

1.216 F VS2 "A Cut Above" Hearts & Arrows ($10,229)

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-6550510

[Why does WF say the Girdle is "Thin - Sly Thick" but the Sarin report says it is "Thin (1.2) - Medium (1.4)"?]

-- OR --

1.220 F VS1 "Expert Selection" Ideal Cut ($9,729)

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-6585606

[What defect(s) likely prevented this diamond from being designated "A Cut Above" H&A?]

I''d greatly appreciate anyl thoughts/advice you all might have regarding the pros/cons of each (and, if known, the answers to my questions above)!!!

 

[JulieN]

Date: 5/18/2006 7:53:04 PM
Author:Riagain
It's getting down to 'crunch time' and I need to make a decision SOON between these two diamonds:

1.216 F VS2 'A Cut Above' Hearts & Arrows ($10,229)

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-6550510

[Why does WF say the Girdle is 'Thin - Sly Thick' but the Sarin report says it is 'Thin (1.2) - Medium (1.4)'?] Not a big deal

-- OR --

1.220 F VS1 'Expert Selection' Ideal Cut ($9,729)

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-6585606

[What defect(s) likely prevented this diamond from being designated 'A Cut Above' H&A?] Just because it is not ACA does not mean it suffers from a defect, and it still looks great.

I'd greatly appreciate anyl thoughts/advice you all might have regarding the pros/cons of each (and, if known, the answers to my questions above)!!!

I wonder if you saw them next to each other if you could even pick which one is which?

Of course, you know that the best thing to do is call WF and ask.

 

[ladykemma]

i am not a gemologist but I have discovered through trial and error that slightly leaky diamonds are purdy. I vote for #2.

 

[Riagain]

Thanks, JulieN! The Girdle is an issue for me because of the setting. The stone will be channel set in a hollowed out "crescent" or "semi-circle" (i.e., instead of a prong setting, the somewhat wider ring band will tension set the diamond). My jeweler told me a girdle variation of "Thin - Slilghtly Thick" might present a problem but that a variation of "Thin - Medium" would not. True?

 

[Riagain]

Date: 5/18/2006 8:10:51 PM
Author: ladykemma
i am not a gemologist but I have discovered through trial and error that slightly leaky diamonds are purdy. I vote for #2.

Thanks, ladykemma! Why do you say that #2 is "slightly leaky"? I only ask because I''m a newbie and they BOTH have the SAME Holloway Cut Advisor ("HCA") scores (i.e., 1.4 according to Pricescope, but I get 1.0 when I enter the numbers from the Sarin report) [Which raises the question: Why is Pricesope''s figure different than mine?]

 

[ladykemma]

because the super duper ideal sound nice on paper but they are so dang DARK in the middle. someone educated please jump in. i am in over my head blub blub

blub

 

[ladykemma]

Date: 5/18/2006 7:53:04 PM
Author:Riagain
It''s getting down to ''crunch time'' and I need to make a decision SOON between these two diamonds:

1.216 F VS2 ''A Cut Above'' Hearts & Arrows ($10,229)

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-6550510

[Why does WF say the Girdle is ''Thin - Sly Thick'' but the Sarin report says it is ''Thin (1.2) - Medium (1.4)''?]

-- OR --

1.220 F VS1 ''Expert Selection'' Ideal Cut ($9,729)

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-6585606

[What defect(s) likely prevented this diamond from being designated ''A Cut Above'' H&A?]

I''d greatly appreciate anyl thoughts/advice you all might have regarding the pros/cons of each (and, if known, the answers to my questions above)!!!

might help if i answer your question. blub blub on the idealscope image there a bits of white on the outer circumference. it is these bits of white that let light leak out but also let light leak in. some people say this makes for more startling black/white contrast. I say set ''em high let some light in at the bottom ( but this is not a popular idea on PS.)

have you seen strong blue fluorescence? try to find one with SBF. looks really cool.

 

[belle]

Date: 5/18/2006 8:31:19 PM
Author: ladykemma
because the super duper ideal sound nice on paper but they are so dang DARK in the middle. someone educated please jump in. i am in over my head blub blub

blub

as the owner of several super ideal diamonds, i can tell you they are not dark in the middle.

you would not be dissapointed with either one of those diamonds riagain, both are very very nice.

i borrowed this not dark in the middle pic from mara''s thread
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/the-new-wf-es-2-32-j-si-at-last.44808/page-12

 

[ladykemma]

very nice!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well, I think the second one looks like a great deal, unless there is something I''m missing.

 

[Mara]

The ACA's are fabulous, BUT I would choose an exceptional Expert Selection that just missed being an ACA if it fit my requiremetns. Sometimes it comes down to inventory for me. What's available in my range? If just an ACA was available, I'd get that. If just an ES was available, I'd get that. But when two stones are available that fit your requirements, that's tougher. So in this case you are comparing two similar diamonds but one is cheaper because it's not branded and it is a tiny bit less precisely cut. Which will not be visual to your eye (I asked Brian this some time ago...aka the little nuances that make or break the ACA brand are not visible to our regular consumer eyes which is why when you look at the IS images or similar you scratch your head and wonder why it didn't make the ACA brand). If the brand is important to you, you have the budget and you want the 100000% precise cut, get the ACA. It will be a stellar performer. If you want to save some cashola and don't care about the brand or having the more precise cut that your eyes can't see, get the ES. It will also be a stellar performer. Having owned both precisely cut ES and ACA stones, I love them all.

 

[Riagain]

Thank you ALL (e.g., belle, diamondseeker, ladykemma, mara) for your advice! Anyone have any thoughts on the different Girdle descriptions and/or HCA numbers?

P.S. -- That''s a BEAUTIFUL diamond, Mara! Is it an ES or an ACA???

 

[belle]

Date: 5/18/2006 9:45:10 PM
Author: Riagain
Thank you ALL (e.g., belle, diamondseeker, ladykemma, mara) for your advice! Anyone have any thoughts on the different Girdle descriptions and/or HCA numbers?

P.S. -- That''s a BEAUTIFUL diamond, Mara! Is it an ES or an ACA???

it''s hard to tell too much about the diamonds girdle from just the measurements. ags reports the thinnest and the thickest parts of the girdle. it could just be one small spot that is ''thin'' or ''slightly thick'' i would call and talk to wf about it.

sarin machines are not all calibrated exactly the same. add to that the margin of error (.02) and you may have some differences between the grading report and another sarin report. either way, the hca scores are great.

 

[Mara]

thanks riagain! it's an ES and i love it! my husband has an ACA in his ring and my earrings are ACA's...they are absolutely lovely too. honestly i think you can't go wrong with either of those options you listed...it's just preference.

 

[Sundial]

They both look great so I would go with the cheaper one unless someone at Whiteflash can tell you that the ACA looks better.

 

[Riagain]

Date: 5/18/2006 10:19:43 PM
Author: Mara
thanks riagain! it''s an ES and i love it! my husband has an ACA in his ring and my earrings are ACA''s...they are absolutely lovely too. honestly i think you can''t go wrong with either of those options you listed...it''s just preference.

Mara -- Since you own several ACAs, would you agree with Ladykemma that super ideal cuts (ACAs) can be dark in the middle or with Belle who says they are NOT dark in the middle?

 

[Mara]

Date: 5/19/2006 12:17:23 AM
Author: Riagain

Date: 5/18/2006 10:19:43 PM
Author: Mara
thanks riagain! it's an ES and i love it! my husband has an ACA in his ring and my earrings are ACA's...they are absolutely lovely too. honestly i think you can't go wrong with either of those options you listed...it's just preference.

Mara -- Since you own several ACAs, would you agree with Ladykemma that super ideal cuts (ACAs) can be dark in the middle or with Belle who says they are NOT dark in the middle?

well first off....the statement up above is incorrect in the comment that 'super ideals' can be dark. some people say that painted girdle ACA's can be dark in the middle, whereas ones that have leakage on the edges can be brighter.

that said, i don't see darkness in any painted girdle stones. my husband's ACA has a painted girdle and it's stunning, he LOVES it. my ES stone was meant to be an ACA but it is kind of in between the painted girdle and classic and it looks amazing as you can see in that picture up above. also my previous ES stone was meant to be an ACA with a painted girdle and i though it looked beautiful.

bottom line for me is that i don't think of the painted girdle stones are dark at all. belle also has an ACA with a painted girdle so i would imagine as one who has actually seen them as well, her perspective would be valuable as well.

 

[Riagain]

Date: 5/19/2006 12:32:09 AM
Author: Mara

Date: 5/19/2006 12:17:23 AM
Author: Riagain

Date: 5/18/2006 10:19:43 PM
Author: Mara
thanks riagain! it''s an ES and i love it! my husband has an ACA in his ring and my earrings are ACA''s...they are absolutely lovely too. honestly i think you can''t go wrong with either of those options you listed...it''s just preference.

Mara -- Since you own several ACAs, would you agree with Ladykemma that super ideal cuts (ACAs) can be dark in the middle or with Belle who says they are NOT dark in the middle?

well first off....the statement up above is incorrect in the comment that ''super ideals'' can be dark. some people say that painted girdle ACA''s can be dark in the middle, whereas ones that have leakage on the edges can be brighter.

that said, i don''t see darkness in any painted girdle stones. my husband''s ACA has a painted girdle and it''s stunning, he LOVES it. my ES stone was meant to be an ACA but it is kind of in between the painted girdle and classic and it looks amazing as you can see in that picture up above. also my previous ES stone was meant to be an ACA with a painted girdle and i though it looked beautiful.

bottom line for me is that i don''t think of the painted girdle stones are dark at all. belle also has an ACA with a painted girdle so i would imagine as one who has actually seen them as well, her perspective would be valuable as well.

Excuse my ignorance [again, I''m a newbie], but is a "painted" girdle the same as a "faceted" girdle???

 

[JulieN]

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/girdle-treatments-cheated-girdles-tweaked-girdles-digging-painting.36102/

 

[Mara]

No it's not the same...Julie posted a great thread to read, you can also search for girdle treatments in the above area...

Basically in basic terms, painted or tweaked girdles like WF's ACA's are modified while being cut to return more light from edge to edge of the stone. The more classic style that is not painted or tweaked has some light leakage along the edges of the stones...which some prefer because it can show more scintillation in the stone. Painted girdles can show larger blocks of sparkle and color from edge to edge, while classic has sharper thinner sparkles like a disco ball kind of thing. It's a subtle difference that you CAN see if you focus in on the stones AND you know what you are looking for. But when I have seen painted and classic side by side and all mixed up, it's really hard to pick them out. Which is why it would be hard for me to choose one over the other...I have had painted so I might like a classic but not because one is better or worse. If that makes sense!

 

[Carlotta]

Some people claim they really prefer one look over the other....and some claim they do see a darkness under the table...
Is there a way you can get a chance to see both kinds of stones together?

In any case, any of these stones from the PS vendors will perform far better than anything you will find in most local jewelry stores...

Regardless of your choice, it''s always a good idea to have an appraiser look at your stone before it is set, just to give you piece of mind....

 

[Riagain]

Thanks for the link, JulieN (although I might need to read the posts a couple of times to fully understand -- all these terms are frying my brain)!

Thank you, Mara, for putting things in more basic terms and for sharing your personal experiences.

Finally, thank you Carlotta for your helpful insights (although I''m afraid there''s no way to see the two stone side by side unless I fly to Houston).

 

[Mara]

It''s not the same as seeing them in person of course but maybe ask WF if they can take a few shots (not vanity but really more performance shots in lighting and stuff) of them side by side so that you can see if you can see a difference in sparkle or similar. I know from experience of taking shots like that when we have visited TX, they all look fabulous to the camera lens and it''s very hard to capture comparison personalities, but maybe it will also set your mind at ease that if you CANNOT see some marked difference in the photo that you''d be happy with either stone because as Carlotta said they are both performers but it just may be a preferrence thing (though to me honestly my preference between the two stones you posted is SAVING MONEY!! hehee). Just a thought.

 

[Riagain]

Date: 5/19/2006 12:51:12 PM
Author: Mara
It''s not the same as seeing them in person of course but maybe ask WF if they can take a few shots (not vanity but really more performance shots in lighting and stuff) of them side by side so that you can see if you can see a difference in sparkle or similar. I know from experience of taking shots like that when we have visited TX, they all look fabulous to the camera lens and it''s very hard to capture comparison personalities, but maybe it will also set your mind at ease that if you CANNOT see some marked difference in the photo that you''d be happy with either stone because as Carlotta said they are both performers but it just may be a preferrence thing (though to me honestly my preference between the two stones you posted is SAVING MONEY!! hehee). Just a thought.

Good idea, Mara! I''ll see if WF would be willing to do so for me . . . .

 

[Carlotta]

Here''s another link re: painting............

www.goodoldgold.com/4Cs/NewCutGrading/Painting/

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/19/2006 1:19:13 AM
Author: JulieN
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/girdle-treatments-cheated-girdles-tweaked-girdles-digging-painting.36102/

Julie,

Thanks for providing the link. No offense to John but there is data in this article which is faulty or could lead one to a faulty conclusions if they were consulting Gem Advisor files or girdle examples. For the most part the definitions are correct but John''s example of a dug out stone actually isn''t dug at all. If anything it is slightly painted. The example Garry gives on the 2nd page of that thread is accurate though. Just a heads up for anyone who is trying to learn about this. I applaud John''s effort and hope he doesn''t take this in the wrong spirit.

Peace,

 

[Riagain]

Date: 5/19/2006 4:19:57 PM
Author: Carlotta
Here''s another link re: painting............

www.goodoldgold.com/4Cs/NewCutGrading/Painting/

Thanks, Carlotta! That was VERY interesting reading!!!

So, because of my setting (i.e., channel/tension set), I probably should NOT consider a "painted" (and therefore UNEVEN) girdle, right???

On a related note, do ALL "super ideal cuts" (i.e., ACAs) have "painted" girdles or do some have "classic" girdles?

Based on the Ideal Scope images of the two diamonds I''m considering [see above] and the images in Carlotta''s GOG link, it appears to me that the ACA has a "painted" girdle (since there is little/no light leakage at the arrowheads) and the ES has a "classic" girdle (since there is some leakage at these points). Right???

 

[Mara]

"So, because of my setting (i.e., channel/tension set), I probably should NOT consider a ''painted'' (and therefore UNEVEN) girdle, right???"

___________________

Don''t know about this...but my husband has a .38c ACA with a painted girdle in his wedding ring which is titanium tension set and it looks fabulous and was fine to be set.

I''m sorry that the information out there is so confusing Riagain...you will find that there are people who believe one thing and others who disagree with them, it''s rare that people on here all agree about what people''s preferences can be. In the end that''s really what it comes down to, you have a bunch of beautiful stones from beautiful vendors on here and it''s just about your preference on looks or numbers or nuances. In the end regardless of what you buy, if it''s an educated purchase it''s 100000% better than anything you could have gotten at a regular store before finding PS. Good luck!

 

[Mara]

As for the two stones you chose up above...the ACA definitely looks painted and the ES looks like a mix between painted and classic...so kind of like a partially painted. I have seen more classic leaky edge stones than that and the edges of some of that girdle appear painted. That is kind of how my ES stone turned out too and I love it. It''s the picture that Belle posted.

 

[Carlotta]

Date: 5/19/2006 11:15:06 PM
Author: Riagain

Date: 5/19/2006 4:19:57 PM
Author: Carlotta
Here''s another link re: painting............

www.goodoldgold.com/4Cs/NewCutGrading/Painting/

Thanks, Carlotta! That was VERY interesting reading!!!

So, because of my setting (i.e., channel/tension set), I probably should NOT consider a ''painted'' (and therefore UNEVEN) girdle, right???

On a related note, do ALL ''super ideal cuts'' (i.e., ACAs) have ''painted'' girdles or do some have ''classic'' girdles?

Based on the Ideal Scope images of the two diamonds I''m considering [see above] and the images in Carlotta''s GOG link, it appears to me that the ACA has a ''painted'' girdle (since there is little/no light leakage at the arrowheads) and the ES has a ''classic'' girdle (since there is some leakage at these points). Right???

you need to check on the actual girdle THICKNESS in this case (a different issue) ....the second stone you posted has a girdle thickness which at some points is thin at .7....you need to find out how much of the girdle is thin, and if it is safe for your setting....If you do a search here you will find lots of threads re: girdle thickness