What do you think about these stones?

[LBC]

Hi, I need some help with the following stones. I’m thinking about getting a stone around 0.8 – 0.9 carat range. The 0.92 and 0.94 stone has only a $200 in difference and the difference between 0.85 and 0.92 is $2500.

It looks like the 0.92 has a bigger measurement than the 0.94 stone. Can someone explain why that is? Also, any comments on the cut parameters would be much appreciated. Which one would you pick?

Thanks,
LBC



.85 F VS2
6.02 x 6.07 x 3.77 mm

Depth: 62.4%
Table: 55%
Crown Angle: 34.8
Crown %: 15.7%
Pavilion angle: 40.7
Pavilion %: 43 %
Culet: none
Lower half length %: 80%
Girdle: slightly thick
Cut: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Polish: Excellent



.94 F VS1
6.26 x 6.29 x 3.88 mm

Depth: 61.8%
Table: 56%
Crown Angle: 34.9
Crown %: 15.3%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 43 %
Culet: none
Lower half length %: 75%
Girdle: slightly thick
Cut: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Polish: Excellent


.92 F VS1
6.29 x 6.33 x 3.85 mm


Depth: 61%
Table: 57%
Crown Angle: 34.2
Crown %: 14.6%
Pavilion Angle: 41.0
Pavilion %: 43.4 %
Culet: none
Lower half length %: 80%
Girdle: slightly thick
Cut: Excellent
Symmetry: VERY GOOD
Polish: Excellent

 

[zerj]

Well all three stones score below 2.0 using the cut advisor (see tools link on the top of the screen). I''m not sure I could say which one is worth buying without knowing a percentage difference between the 0.85 and the 0.92.

However to answer your size question. Caret is a unit of weight not dimensions. So a stone that is deeper will not be as wide accross as one that is shallower as part of the weight of the stone actually goes to making it deeper. Same thing with thick/thin girdles I would expect. I''d always suggest looking at depth and anything over 62.5% or so would probably be small for its weight. I personally don''t think you''d notice the size difference between the 0.92 and 0.94 as they are still pretty close in weight and diameter but I have seen stones that are substantially different in diameter at the same weight and it is something to be wary of.

Personally I suspect that part of the $2500 dollar difference between teh 0.92 and 0.85 is going from VS2 to VS1. I''d prefer a VS2 as the inclusions still shouldn''t be visible.

For that matter my wife is wearing a ''G'' as she can''t tell the difference between G and F. It is said to be harder to tell the difference in color with an ideal cut. So that could be something to consider

 

[LBC]

Thanks Zerj for answering my question in regard to weight and diameter.

Can anyone else comment on the specs? The more I look at the number, the more confused I am.

Here are my concerns:

0.85
The crown and pavilion angles look good but I’m not sure about the total depth % of 62.4 and the girdle is slightly thick.
0.92
The pavilion angle is outside of the norm of 40.7 to 40.9 and the symmetry is only very good.
0.94
The crown and pavilion angles look ok, the depth is ok, and lgf is 75. Can you visual see a difference between lgf of 75 and 80?
All three are in my price range and I like to stay with F and VSI and VS2 specs and I can only afford one of them. I''m not sure which combination is the best or should I start all over...


Thanks
LBC

 

[Lorelei]

Welcome LB!

Are these diamonds with an online vendor?

 

[LBC]

Thanks Lorelei...I''ve reading on the forum for some time now and I find all the information to be very useful. To answer your question, the diamonds are not from an online vendor...I hope this doesn''t stop people from commenting.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/27/2008 4:21:52 PM
Author: LBC
Thanks Lorelei...I''ve reading on the forum for some time now and I find all the information to be very useful. To answer your question, the diamonds are not from an online vendor...I hope this doesn''t stop people from commenting.

Not at all, the reason I asked is because if you hadn''t actually seen the diamonds, you could request an Idealscope image from the vendor to post here, but you are able to see the diamonds, so that is a huge help! Which do you like best?

 

[LBC]

Which do I like the best? That’s a good question. I did get to see these stone in person but honestly I can’t tell much difference in them except the size difference between the 0.85 and the 0.92/0.94 and that the 0.85 stone was set higher due to higher depth %. I know that people say that you should let your eyes guide you but what if you have really poor vision or you just don’t know what to look for. I have read all the education information over and over again but when it comes to selecting a diamond of my own…I am so clueless. I was hoping that there would be some magically numbers that weed out the bad for me and thus making it easier for me to decide.

 

[JulieN]

well, seems like you can't go wrong.

are theses touted as ideal cuts? are they branded cuts? rarely do people come on here with numbers for 3 stones from a B&M and they are all quite nice on paper.

 

[LBC]

I did a lot of research on the forum and I narrowed the specs down to a range that I thought I would be comfortable with. And the nice sales lady give me these three options. All three stones have specs that are outside of the range that I gave her and I wrote down my concerns above. I’m wondering what others think about the specs…

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I would rule out that particular .85 since the depth and slightly thick girdle are not enhancing the diameter measurement. I would think the other two would almost look identical and larger than the other one. That is a huge price difference between the smaller and two larger stones, though.

However, of these 3, I would choose the .94 F VS1. I like the measurements and it is Ex/Ex/Ex.

 

[kcoursolle]

Any particular reason you prefer VS1 clarity and high color? You could save some money or go larger if you drop down to G/VS2 or SI1. Many SI stones are completely eye clean, really!! Why pay for a difference you can''t see?

 

[Dancing Fire]

i would go for #1 or #2. i'm a sucker for high crown & small table.

Lower half length %: 80% = thinner arrows 75% = fatter arrows

 

[angeline]

I''m another vote for #3. #1 has the diameter issues DS2006 mentioned, and between #2 and #3, I like the depth on #3 better (i.e. not as deep as #2 which gives a little more diameter)