Urgent opinions please

[insured]

Learned a lot from you all over 10 years ago when buying my E-ring. Nice to still see so many familiar names still here helping people. Can't even remember what my handle was back then.

Unfortunately my original stone recently suffered a large girdle chip and cleavage fracture through the stone, so in the process of searching for a replacement under insurance.

Q for the cut experts - which stone and why? Both RB AGS 000 E VS2:

A. .513 ct, 5.13 x 5.17 x 3.18 mm
crown < 34.1
pav < 40.8
depth 61.8%
table 54.5%
girdle 1.9% - 4.1%
pointed culet
HCA 1.1 Ex/Ex/Ex/Vg
current cert ( Oct 2013)

B. .561 ct, 5.34 x 5.37 x 3.25 mm
crown < 34.1
pav < 40.7
depth 60.7%
table 55.9%
girdle thin to medium
pointed culet
HCA 0.7 Ex/Ex/Ex/Vg
cert Nov 2011 - being represented as new

Size is unimportant to me - mostly concerned with light performance. How big a deal should the two year old cert be?

Thanks for any and all input!

 

[Niel]

Of the two I'd get the larger. But I'd also probably drop a color grade or 3 to get a bigger stone.

 

[yssie]

Learned a lot from you all over 10 years ago when buying my E-ring. Nice to still see so many familiar names still here helping people. Can't even remember what my handle was back then.

Unfortunately my original stone recently suffered a large girdle chip and cleavage fracture through the stone, so in the process of searching for a replacement under insurance.

Q for the cut experts - which stone and why? Both RB AGS 000 E VS2:

A. .513 ct, 5.13 x 5.17 x 3.18 mm
crown < 34.1
pav < 40.8
depth 61.8%
table 54.5%
girdle 1.9% - 4.1%
pointed culet
HCA 1.1 Ex/Ex/Ex/Vg
current cert ( Oct 2013)

B. .561 ct, 5.34 x 5.37 x 3.25 mm
crown < 34.1
pav < 40.7
depth 60.7%
table 55.9%
girdle thin to medium
pointed culet
HCA 0.7 Ex/Ex/Ex/Vg
cert Nov 2011 - being represented as new

Size is unimportant to me - mostly concerned with light performance. How big a deal should the two year old cert be?

Thanks for any and all input!

Need more info/pics.
We can't nitpick the nuances without any nuances to nitpick over - the info above from the reports is averaged, rounded, and incomplete. What we can say is that both are worth getting more info on/seeing in-person if the price is right.

 

[insured]

Thanks for the input. I assume your answer is based on the size alone? I have very small hands, an active life/job and modest family/friends - around here .5 is large, and plenty big for me. I have a thick platinum semi-bezel and am very sensitive to yellow, so I'm happy with the size and color grade.

 

[insured]

[/quote]

Need more info/pics.
We can't nitpick the nuances without any nuances to nitpick over - the info above from the reports is averaged, rounded, and incomplete. What we can say is that both are worth getting more info on/seeing in-person if the price is right.[/quote]

What info/nuances would help you? Would be happy to share anything I can.

They are both AGS 000, both ideal light performance, proportion factors and finish (ideal symmetry, polish).

The .56 has a platinum report with ASET - missing the 12 and 6 o'clock arrows, not much light leakage.
The .51 has a regular AGS Diamond Quality Document - - would love to link the AGS reports but not sure how.

I have seen them both in person but under markedly different light conditions, so hard to compare for sure.

One of my concerns with the .56 is the HCA under 1 and it did strike me as dark at close viewing under daylight at the window. LOTS of contrast though, almost too much black contrast if that makes sense. The .51 was nice and bright but no daylight and couldn't get away from jewellers lights.

I know there's lots of discussion about the statement that people tend to prefer HCA over 1 and why - my theory is that too MUCH direct light return leads to excessive head shadow without enough indirect light return to fill it in - would love to hear anyone's thoughts on that.

Price is essentially equivalent since it's an insurance replacement.

 

[yssie]

If you can post the AGS report numbers and exact carat weights (x.xxx) we can pull them up online I want LGF and star, and the ASET simulation on the Platinum report, and I always find it helpful to have some other eyes look over the full reports just to confirm no other red flags. I don't think the two year report is a big deal if you can have someone you trust (independent appraiser?) confirm that the stone is in exactly the condition represented by the report, no marks from wear in tear in the intervening years.

TBH I think you've answered your question here though:

One of my concerns with the .56 is the HCA under 1 and it did strike me as dark at close viewing under daylight at the window. LOTS of contrast though, almost too much black contrast if that makes sense.

I know there's lots of discussion about the statement that people tend to prefer HCA over 1 and why - my theory is that too MUCH direct light return leads to excessive head shadow without enough indirect light return to fill it in - would love to hear anyone's thoughts on that.

That's it exactly! Shallower stones are often proportioned such that more of the facets require light from directly above - which winds up being a reflection of your head when you're in front of it or leaning over it. I have dark skin and hair and I had a shallower stone for a few months and I definitely noticed the blackening-facets effect, and I really didn't care for it.

 

[insured]

If you can post the AGS report numbers and exact carat weights (x.xxx) we can pull them up online I want LGF and star, and the ASET simulation on the Platinum report, and I always find it helpful to have some other eyes look over the full reports just to confirm no other red flags. I don't think the two year report is a big deal if you can have someone you trust (independent appraiser?) confirm that the stone is in exactly the condition represented by the report, no marks from wear in tear in the intervening years.

TBH I think you've answered your question here though:

One of my concerns with the .56 is the HCA under 1 and it did strike me as dark at close viewing under daylight at the window. LOTS of contrast though, almost too much black contrast if that makes sense.

I know there's lots of discussion about the statement that people tend to prefer HCA over 1 and why - my theory is that too MUCH direct light return leads to excessive head shadow without enough indirect light return to fill it in - would love to hear anyone's thoughts on that.

That's it exactly! Shallower stones are often proportioned such that more of the facets require light from directly above - which winds up being a reflection of your head when you're in front of it or leaning over it. I have dark skin and hair and I had a shallower stone for a few months and I definitely noticed the blackening-facets effect, and I really didn't care for it.

A second set of eyes for what can't be seen in person is exactly what I'm hoping for

AGS 104055025045 0.561 cts
AGS 104067742002 0.513 cts

All comments welcome and thanks!

 

[yssie]

If you can post the AGS report numbers and exact carat weights (x.xxx) we can pull them up online I want LGF and star, and the ASET simulation on the Platinum report, and I always find it helpful to have some other eyes look over the full reports just to confirm no other red flags. I don't think the two year report is a big deal if you can have someone you trust (independent appraiser?) confirm that the stone is in exactly the condition represented by the report, no marks from wear in tear in the intervening years.

TBH I think you've answered your question here though:

One of my concerns with the .56 is the HCA under 1 and it did strike me as dark at close viewing under daylight at the window. LOTS of contrast though, almost too much black contrast if that makes sense.

I know there's lots of discussion about the statement that people tend to prefer HCA over 1 and why - my theory is that too MUCH direct light return leads to excessive head shadow without enough indirect light return to fill it in - would love to hear anyone's thoughts on that.

That's it exactly! Shallower stones are often proportioned such that more of the facets require light from directly above - which winds up being a reflection of your head when you're in front of it or leaning over it. I have dark skin and hair and I had a shallower stone for a few months and I definitely noticed the blackening-facets effect, and I really didn't care for it.

A second set of eyes for what can't be seen in person is exactly what I'm hoping for

AGS 104055025045 0.561 cts
AGS 104067742002 0.513 cts

All comments welcome and thanks!

This is the 0.561: http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104055025045-PLDQR.PDF
Numbers are fine and no red flags. Optical symmetry is rather poorer than we're used to seeing on here though, so... that sways me against it. AGSL doesn't evaluate optical symmetry (the symmetry grade noted on the report is facet "meet" symmetry) and doesn't up- or down-grade cut grade, but it does affect light return in that virtual facets are smaller on average, and smaller facets tend to excel at glitter and twinkle at the expense of big bold rolling flashes of colour, and since smaller stones have smaller facets to begin with... plus I just like seeing the star pattern of arrows when I inspect my stone!

The older report isn't necessarily a problem but it's another thing to have to deal with.

The 0.513: http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104067742002-PDQDFK.PDF
My pick no question!!
Recent report, no flags, numbers are fine - apparently it's a branded Lazare Kaplan!!

 

[insured]

This is the 0.561: http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104055025045-PLDQR.PDF
Numbers are fine and no red flags. Optical symmetry is rather poorer than we're used to seeing on here though, so... that sways me against it. AGSL doesn't evaluate optical symmetry (the symmetry grade noted on the report is facet "meet" symmetry) and doesn't up- or down-grade cut grade, but it does affect light return in that virtual facets are smaller on average, and smaller facets tend to excel at glitter and twinkle at the expense of big bold rolling flashes of colour, and since smaller stones have smaller facets to begin with... plus I just like seeing the star pattern of arrows when I inspect my stone!

The older report isn't necessarily a problem but it's another thing to have to deal with.

The 0.513: http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104067742002-PDQDFK.PDF
My pick no question!!
Recent report, no flags, numbers are fine - apparently it's a branded Lazare Kaplan!!

Thanks Yssie. Yes, the .51 is LK and I did enjoy looking at the stars on my first diamond too! Don't have anything to speak to the LK's optical symmetry... It looked beautiful but wish I could know how it looked without the trick lighting, lol. Appreciate your look at the certs.

 

[insured]

Anyone else with 2 cents?

When I last diamond shopped, Lazare were ideal but not necessarily H&A, whereas Lazare's site now says they are H&A, although it's buried in the FAQ and they don't really seem to trumpet it. Anyone weigh in on the reliability of their H&A pattern in stones currently being cut? Perhaps I'll post that Q under it's own subject...

 

[insured]

Crunch time!

AGS OOO Canadian Arctic Love http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104055025045-PLDQR.PDF

or

AGSOOO Lazare Kaplan http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104067742002-PDQDFK.PDF for $500 more.

Don't care about size, in fact, the slightly larger size on the first is a detractor for me!

Someone push me

 

[yssie]

Were you able to get any more info on how LK defines H&A?

Even without more info the LK gets my vote, given the less-than-excellent optical symmetry of the first and the fact that the larger size is a detractor for you... but I think you were looking for new opinions!

 

[c-k]

Crunch time!

AGS OOO Canadian Arctic Love http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104055025045-PLDQR.PDF

or

AGSOOO Lazare Kaplan http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104067742002-PDQDFK.PDF for $500 more.

Don't care about size, in fact, the slightly larger size on the first is a detractor for me!

Someone push me

Just me, but I would go with the bigger stone and save the $500, it is a AGSL000 and should look fantastic.

 

[insured]

Were you able to get any more info on how LK defines H&A?

Even without more info the LK gets my vote, given the less-than-excellent optical symmetry of the first and the fact that the larger size is a detractor for you... but I think you were looking for new opinions!

Thanks Yssie, no I haven't, but even your re-affirmed opinion is helpful

 

[insured]

Crunch time!

AGS OOO Canadian Arctic Love http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104055025045-PLDQR.PDF

or

AGSOOO Lazare Kaplan http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104067742002-PDQDFK.PDF for $500 more.

Don't care about size, in fact, the slightly larger size on the first is a detractor for me!

Someone push me

Just me, but I would go with the bigger stone and save the $500, it is a AGSL000 and should look fantastic.

Thanks for the vote The fact that I'm having such a hard time probably hints to the fact that both would be fine