[Urgent] Need your help

[jercker]

Hi all - could you please let me know your thoughts on below stones. I like the specs of stone A more but a bit concerned with the depth of 62.6%. HCA says it looks smaller than average.
This is unfortunately a bit urgent.

Also when compared to Stone C let me know your preferences please.

Stone A:
0.81 carat, G, VS2, GIA XXX, no fluorescence with the following specs:

CA: 35.5 degree
PA: 40.6 degree
Table: 57%
Depth: 62.6%
Crown Height: 15.5%
Pavillon Depth: 43%
LGF: 80%
Stars: 45%
Girdle: 4%
Culet: None

HCA gives it 1.4 with everything excellent besides spread which is very good.

Stone B:
0.80 carat, G, VS2, GIA XXX, no fluorescence with the following specs:

CA: 35.5 degree
PA: 40.8 degree
Table: 57%
Depth: 62.5%
Crown Height: 15.5%
Pavillon Depth: 43%
LGF: 75%
Stars: 50%
Girdle: 4%
Culet: None

HCA gives it 2.6 with everything very good only.

Stone C:
0.84 carat, F, VS2, GIA XXX, no fluorescence with the following specs:

CA: 36 degree
PA: 40.6 degree
Table: 58%
Depth: 62.3%
Crown Height: 15.5%
Pavillon Depth: 43%
LGF: 75%
Stars: 55%
Girdle: 4%
Culet: None

HCA gives it 1.9 excellent within FIC range with fire excellent, light return, scintillation and spread very good.

 

[Karl_K]

Last one 58t 36ca with 55 stars is not promising and a combo that requires advanced images.
The middle one can go either way but without advanced images is a nah better fish out there.
First one has the highest light performance potential if well executed but the spread is impacted a bit.
Have any pics or video?

 

[sledge]

Last one 58t 36ca with 55 stars is not promising and a combo that requires advanced images.
The middle one can go either way but without advanced images is a nah better fish out there.
First one has the highest light performance potential if well executed but the spread is impacted a bit.
Have any pics or video?

Haha I just saw this thread but had similar comments on his other thread where he only asked about A and B.

 

[jercker]

Thanks both - will try to upload photos and vids as soon as possible. Given that I wont be able to get an aset, which of the two is the safest bet. Personally I 'd think stone A should be relatively safe but how bad is the 62.6% depth? Also what's your take on the 45% star facets with 80% lgf? Would you consider A super ideal or at least ideal?

 

[tyty333]

No, Stone A does not fall into Super Ideal or Ideal IMO.

Problems: Depth
Crown is higher than "normal" but it does have a corresponding lower pavilion.

Why are only these 3 an option? Is this all the jeweler has that fits in your specs? I wish you had more time because we
could show you some on-line that are better cut.

 

[jercker]

This is stone A.

https://imgur.com/a/sB9eGLD

 

[DejaWiz]

This is stone A.

https://imgur.com/a/sB9eGLD

ASET or Ideal-Scope images possible?
Diamond "A" is the one I'd be seriously considering because of the 45 stars and 80 lowers helping out the 40.6/35.5 PA/CA pairing.

 

[jercker]

Wont be able to get an Aset or IS unfortunately so would need to buy of photos/ vids and specs. Hence, my question above - conscious of the gia rounding, how safe are the specs in your opinion?

Obviously the 62.6% make it look slightly smaller for its carat size but I am more focused on light reflection so I believe the depth shouldnt be too bad unless you disagree

 

[Karl_K]

GIA rounded 45% stars is perfect for a 57T 35.5CA GIA rounded numbers.
Basically being under 50% is an advantage for that combo.
The GIA rounded 80% lowers balance well with that combo.
With GIA grossly rounded numbers you have to look at if everything in the rounding is going to play well and these do.
Smaller girdle% to improve spread would have been better.

 

[Karl_K]

The best I can say about the videos is that I don't see anything that screams reject me I'm bad.

 

[DejaWiz]

Can the jeweler provide video(s) of the brilliance in indirect lighting/shade?

 

[jercker]

Thanks all - will move fwd with Stone A. I believe it's a good balance despite the slightly elevated depth which however shld still be fine imo. Also managed to negotiate a slight reduction in price given the depth.

 

[momofive]

I guess this was REALLY urgent!

 

[jercker]

Btw here is a link with IS & Aset for stone B. Based on this I believe it was the right call not to go with this one unless you disagree

Diamond DNA

DNA View

view.diadna.com

 

[lovedogs]

Btw here is a link with IS & Aset for stone B. Based on this I believe it was the right call not to go with this one unless you disagree

Diamond DNA

DNA View

view.diadna.com

It's not great.

 

[DejaWiz]

Btw here is a link with IS & Aset for stone B. Based on this I believe it was the right call not to go with this one unless you disagree

Diamond DNA

DNA View

view.diadna.com

Not even a contender... Looks like horrible pavilion twist and a leakage spot big enough to pass a 50cal through

 

[jercker]

Also, this is stone A. A friend of mine who saw the stone today told me it was eye-clean. Any final thoughts? Payment will go out tmrw morning first thing.

0.81 Carat round diamond

This 0.81 carat round diamond G color vs2 clarity has Excellent proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

 

[DejaWiz]

Also, this is stone A. A friend of mine who saw the stone today told me it was eye-clean. Any final thoughts? Payment will go out tmrw morning first thing.

0.81 Carat round diamond

This 0.81 carat round diamond G color vs2 clarity has Excellent proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

Better than diamond B, but looks to have some cut precision issues going on with the pavilion facets, from what I can see in this particular video.

 

[jercker]

Agreed - it's not 100% perfect but unless you disagree it looks overall like a good stone to me with some obstruction however. Have seen some H&A with bigger issues

 

[lovedogs]

Agreed - it's not 100% perfect but unless you disagree it looks overall like a good stone to me with some obstruction however. Have seen some H&A with bigger issues

If they were true H&A stones, then they likely didn't have bigger issues. True H&A are cut to precise optical proportions. Any stone can be viewed with a H&A viewer, but most don't look good.

 

[jercker]

Got it and thanks both. What I meant is that some of the JA true hearts stones I've seen weren't super ideal either imo (same with BN Astor). But independent of that and conscious that we dont have the required photos of the stone (Aset, H&A, etc.) would you not consider stone A as strong H&A potential at all then?

 

[lovedogs]

Got it and thanks both. What I meant is that some of the JA true hearts stones I've seen weren't super ideal either imo (same with BN Astor). But independent of that and conscious that we dont have the required photos of the stone (Aset, H&A, etc.) would you not consider stone A as strong H&A potential at all then?

Yeah, the JA true hearts often aren't great, and same with Astor stones. Stone A isn't an H&A stone in my mind. It isn't cut to precise enough proportions for that. I don't know how much stone A cost, so I can't speak to whether it was a good deal or not.

 

[jercker]

Btw - for everyones reference few more photos/ videos of stone A attached. Any further thoughts - issues you can identify. I could still return in case of any major issues. Pls lmk.

https://imgur.com/a/unYRYif