What would you do... size or pavillion depth?

[justinislooking]

I have two diamonds I am looking at (yes, I thought I decided eons ago but I haven't - I was commissioned by my girlfriend to cut cost). They are both about the same price. Both are GIA excellents. One is .70 ct and falls in the AGS0 parameters, but the other is .80 carat and doesn't meet AGS0 parameters, because of pavillion depth of 43.5%.

They both score well on the HCA, but the .70 ct gets 3/4 excellents and the .80 ct gets 2/4 excellents with the pavillion angle and 1/4 excellents with the pavillion depth. They are both the same color with excellent polish and symmetry. The .70 ct is VS1 clarity and the .80 ct is an SI1.

Assume that the .80 ct is eye clean. Would you choose it over the .70 ct even though it would probably be an AGS1? I've seen depth percentages be wrong on reports... even saw an AGS0 that was graded as 62.2% depth actually come in as 62% on the sarin report. Theres a chance that the pavillion depth might actually be less on the .80 ct than the report says, but it could also be more.

These are about the same price. The .7 ct is going to be noticeably smaller than the .8 ct. The .7 ct is about 5.7mm wide and the .8 ct is about 5.99mm wide.

- I know I need to check ASET and IS, but I'm just going off numbers right now.

The numbers for the .80 ct:
Depth: 61.9%
Table: 56%
Crown Angle: 34.0°
Crown Height: 14.5%
Pavilion Angle: 41.0°
Pavilion Depth: 43.5%
Star length: 55%
Lower Half: 75%
Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick, Faceted (4.0%)
Culet: None

The numbers for the .70 ct:
Depth: 62.1%
Table: 55%
Crown Angle: 34.5°
Crown Height: 15.5%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Pavilion Depth: 43.0%
Star length: 50%
Lower Half: 80%
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted (3.5%)
Culet: None

I'm afraid to post these numbers on here, because I don't want anybody to take these before I can. Hehe. I already had the perfect diamond snatched out from under me today.

 

[stone-cold11]

Nothing wrong with the 0.8c as long as the IS/ASET checks out ok and it is eye-clean.

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 5/4/2009 4:42:56 PM
Author:justinislooking
I have two diamonds I am looking at (yes, I thought I decided eons ago but I haven't - I was commissioned by my girlfriend to cut cost). They are both about the same price. Both are GIA excellents. One is .70 ct and falls in the AGS0 parameters, but the other is .80 carat and doesn't meet AGS0 parameters, because of pavillion depth of 43.5%.

They both score well on the HCA, but the .70 ct gets 3/4 excellents and the .80 ct gets 2/4 excellents with the pavillion angle and 1/4 excellents with the pavillion depth. They are both the same color with excellent polish and symmetry. The .70 ct is VS1 clarity and the .80 ct is an SI1.

Assume that the .80 ct is eye clean. Would you choose it over the .70 ct even though it would probably be an AGS1? I've seen depth percentages be wrong on reports... even saw an AGS0 that was graded as 62.2% depth actually come in as 62% on the sarin report. Theres a chance that the pavillion depth might actually be less on the .80 ct than the report says, but it could also be more.

Pavillion angle is more accurate on the HCA than percentage. As long as the stone scores under 2 it is worth pursuing further (ASET & IS) Don't worry about how many excellents it shows. The HCA is trying to make a prediction of the diamond's performance, an ASET will show what that performance actually is.

It is not unusual for the cert and the Sarin to be slightly different, due to calibration of the machines. AGS would be considered the more accurate.

 

[Ellen]

Assuming the ASET looks good, and it''s eyeclean, I''d have no problem with the .80 And ditto to the angles being more reliable/accurate.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/4/2009 6:37:25 PM
Author: Ellen
Assuming the ASET looks good, and it''s eyeclean, I''d have no problem with the .80 And ditto to the angles being more reliable/accurate.

Thritto

 

[justinislooking]

So, the .80 ct that I listed above was the one I told them to look for and I thought they found it. It turns out that they found a different one. What do you think of this one? I''m a little disappointed, because this one is slightly smaller in diameter, because of the increased depth. The other one topped out at 5.99mm and this one tops out at 5.97mm - crying over spilled milk . Not a noticeable difference.

Here are the specs:
Proportions:
Depth: 62.1%
Table: 56%
Crown Angle: 35.0°
Crown Height: 15.5%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Pavilion Depth: 43.0%
Star length: 55%
Lower Half: 75%
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted (3.5%)
Culet: None

These stones are ''I'' color stones with SB fluorescence. I''m hoping that they will face up like an ''H'' or ''G''. The stone I was going to go with was a ''G'', until my girlfriend commissioned me to save money. Apparently my girlfriend likes fluorescence too.

I will have the IS, ASET, and 40x today or tomorrow. How do you think stones like these, from the numbers, will face up against your typical AGS Ideal? I think these numbers are probably an AGS1, instead of an AGS0. $700 price difference is huge though

I could use the price difference for our wedding bands or at least her wedding band.

I can''t wait to find the right diamond and get this ring made so I can propose. Woohooo!

 

[stone-cold11]

Looks good from the numbers, will wait for the ASET/IS image.