Which ACA...

[Gothgrrl]

I want to get my mother a nice size diamond. She really doesn''t have any nice size bling. Anyhow, I have found 2 ACA''s that are J color. I just don''t know which one to choose. So here are the specs. Thanks for helping.

.738 VS2/J
depth 60.9
table 56.8
crown ang. 34.7
pav. ang. 40.6
ex ex ex vg 0.8

.73 SI/J
depth 61.6
table 55.8
crown ang. 34.5
pav. ang. 40.7
ex ex ex vg 1

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/20/2008 3:44:11 PM
Author:Gothgrrl
I want to get my mother a nice size diamond. She really doesn't have any nice size bling. Anyhow, I have found 2 ACA's that are J color. I just don't know which one to choose. So here are the specs. Thanks for helping.

.738 VS2/J
depth 60.9
table 56.8
crown ang. 34.7
pav. ang. 40.6
ex ex ex vg 0.8

.73 SI/J
depth 61.6
table 55.8
crown ang. 34.5
pav. ang. 40.7
ex ex ex vg 1

They both look great by the numbers, do you have Idealscope images and the diameter measurements? Prices? I would probably choose the probably cheaper J SI1, assuming it is eyeclean.

 

[Gothgrrl]

Thanks lorelei...they don''t have the pics up yet. I have been waiting for some new stones to come in and it looks like they got quite a few. It''s not even listed in the PS search engine yet. Specs...the VS is 5.82X5.85X3.55 and the SI is 5.75X5.80X3.56. The price is pretty similar.

 

[Ellen]

If the price isn''t much difference, and the IS looks good, which I imagine it will, I''d get the VS.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 4/20/2008 8:33:19 PM
Author: Ellen
If the price isn''t much difference, and the IS looks good, which I imagine it will, I''d get the VS.

Ditto!

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 4/20/2008 9:21:56 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 4/20/2008 8:33:19 PM

Author: Ellen

If the price isn''t much difference, and the IS looks good, which I imagine it will, I''d get the VS.

Ditto!

Thritto! It''s an eensy bit bigger and every little bit helps!

 

[Gothgrrl]

Thanks everybody. Well it looks like most of you like the bigger stone. I am waiting to hear if the SI is eye clean, though like all you said, the other is bigger. Oh no....I''m becoming a size person.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 4/20/2008 11:13:26 PM
Author: Gothgrrl
Thanks everybody. Well it looks like most of you like the bigger stone. I am waiting to hear if the SI is eye clean, though like all you said, the other is bigger. Oh no....I''m becoming a size person.

Welcome to the dark side!

P.S. You''re such a good daughter- if you have any siblings you''re totally going to be the favorite kid after you give the diamond to your mom!

 

[Cleo]

Two yummy diamonds to choose from... and another vote for the slightly bigger VS2!

x x x

*ETA* I just noticed after I posted that this is for your mother!!WOWEEE!!!! She is one very lucky lady and you are a very, very lovely daughter!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/20/2008 4:23:31 PM
Author: Gothgrrl
Thanks lorelei...they don''t have the pics up yet. I have been waiting for some new stones to come in and it looks like they got quite a few. It''s not even listed in the PS search engine yet. Specs...the VS is 5.82X5.85X3.55 and the SI is 5.75X5.80X3.56. The price is pretty similar.

In that case, I will take the bigger one all the way

 

[Splinter]

The difference in size will probably not even be noticeable, but I''ll never say no to a VS stone.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2008 7:25:58 AM
Author: Splinter
The difference in size will probably not even be noticeable, but I'll never say no to a VS stone.

No it probably won't be, but sometimes it is nice to know it is a slight tidge bigger on paper also...

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/21/2008 7:29:57 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/21/2008 7:25:58 AM
Author: Splinter
The difference in size will probably not even be noticeable, but I''ll never say no to a VS stone.

No it probably won''t be, but sometimes it is nice to know it is slightly bigger on paper also...

5.77 vs. 5.83.? I could see it.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2008 7:34:58 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 4/21/2008 7:29:57 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/21/2008 7:25:58 AM
Author: Splinter
The difference in size will probably not even be noticeable, but I'll never say no to a VS stone.

No it probably won't be, but sometimes it is nice to know it is slightly bigger on paper also...

5.77 vs. 5.83.? I could see it.

LOL!!!!!! Actually so could I probably, if I concintwated!!!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/21/2008 7:37:50 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/21/2008 7:34:58 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 4/21/2008 7:29:57 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/21/2008 7:25:58 AM
Author: Splinter
The difference in size will probably not even be noticeable, but I''ll never say no to a VS stone.

No it probably won''t be, but sometimes it is nice to know it is slightly bigger on paper also...

5.77 vs. 5.83.? I could see it.

LOL!!!!!! Actually so could I probably, if I concintwated!!!

 

[Splinter]

Now I understand...

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2008 8:09:07 AM
Author: Splinter
Now I understand...

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice touch with the optic nerve Splint! I so need a T shirt with your design on!

 

[Cleo]

Date: 4/21/2008 8:09:07 AM
Author: Splinter
Now I understand...

Heeheeeheeheeeeheeeheeeeeeeee!!

That is just brilliant - I love it!!

It totally explains why I can see the tiniest inclusions at ten miles - but doesn''t realy explain why diamonds start looking smaller after a few weeks of wearing them..

Great drawing

x x x

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2008 8:12:07 AM
Author: Cleo

Date: 4/21/2008 8:09:07 AM
Author: Splinter
Now I understand...

Heeheeeheeheeeeheeeheeeeeeeee!!

That is just brilliant - I love it!!

It totally explains why I can see the tiniest inclusions at ten miles - but doesn''t realy explain why diamonds start looking smaller after a few weeks of wearing them..

Great drawing

x x x

I know, isn''t it excellent???

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/21/2008 8:09:07 AM
Author: Splinter
Now I understand...

Good one


To be honest, I have been said to have, what was it FG said? Freakishly sensitive hawk eyes? Or something to that affect.

It''s a curse....


But, it IS well known that in stones under 1 ct., small size differences are much more noticable. I''m not making that up.

 

[Splinter]

Date: 4/21/2008 8:12:07 AM
Author: Cleo
It totally explains why I can see the tiniest inclusions at ten miles - but doesn''t realy explain why diamonds start looking smaller after a few weeks of wearing them..

Ah, but you see, obviously the eye has a glare protection shutter mechanism. So the longer you stare at a diamond, the more glare you experience. To protect the sensitive eye, the shutter mechanism reduces the amount of light allowed to pass through, also reducing the apparent size of the diamond. Thus, the more diamonds you are exposed to over time, the bigger they need to be before you think they are big enough.

The concept is illustrated below.

 

[Cleo]

Date: 4/21/2008 9:19:12 AM
Author: Splinter

Date: 4/21/2008 8:12:07 AM
Author: Cleo
It totally explains why I can see the tiniest inclusions at ten miles - but doesn''t realy explain why diamonds start looking smaller after a few weeks of wearing them..

Ah, but you see, obviously the eye has a glare protection shutter mechanism. So the longer you stare at a diamond, the more glare you experience. To protect the sensitive eye, the shutter mechanism reduces the amount of light allowed to pass through, also reducing the apparent size of the diamond. Thus, the more diamonds you are exposed to over time, the bigger they need to be before you think they are big enough.

The concept is illustrated below.

You are just the best.. this is hilarious!!

My sister in law (who wears a 2 carat diamond) was trying to tell me she wouldn''t buy a bigger stone becayse 2cts was big enough.

Pardon?!?!

I can tell she doesn''t hang around on PS!

''Big enough'' wouldn''t kick in for me until I was at Burton-Tayloresque proportions. Or when I just couldn''t lift my hand any longer....

Probably the latter.

x x x

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2008 9:26:48 AM
Author: Cleo

Date: 4/21/2008 9:19:12 AM
Author: Splinter

Date: 4/21/2008 8:12:07 AM
Author: Cleo
It totally explains why I can see the tiniest inclusions at ten miles - but doesn''t realy explain why diamonds start looking smaller after a few weeks of wearing them..

Ah, but you see, obviously the eye has a glare protection shutter mechanism. So the longer you stare at a diamond, the more glare you experience. To protect the sensitive eye, the shutter mechanism reduces the amount of light allowed to pass through, also reducing the apparent size of the diamond. Thus, the more diamonds you are exposed to over time, the bigger they need to be before you think they are big enough.

The concept is illustrated below.

You are just the best.. this is hilarious!!

My sister in law (who wears a 2 carat diamond) was trying to tell me she wouldn''t buy a bigger stone becayse 2cts was big enough.

Pardon?!?!

I can tell she doesn''t hang around on PS!

''Big enough'' wouldn''t kick in for me until I was at Burton-Tayloresque proportions. Or when I just couldn''t lift my hand any longer....

Probably the latter.

x x x

29.75 carats.

Splinter, you are a riot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/21/2008 9:26:48 AM
Author: Cleo

You are just the best.. this is hilarious!!

My sister in law (who wears a 2 carat diamond) was trying to tell me she wouldn''t buy a bigger stone becayse 2cts was big enough.

Pardon?!?!

I can tell she doesn''t hang around on PS!

''Big enough'' wouldn''t kick in for me until I was at Burton-Tayloresque proportions. Or when I just couldn''t lift my hand any longer....

Probably the latter.

x x x

LOVE it!!!




Splinter, yer on a rolll!

 

[Cleo]

Date: 4/21/2008 9:30:57 AM
Author: Lorelei

29.75 carats.

Splinter, you are a riot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

29.75 carats... hmm...

I suppose I could use it as a sidestone to the main attraction

100 cts might just do it...

*fantasising*

I would *totally* wear 29.75 carats as a ring Everyone would think it was a CZ, so I'd never get mugged for it!

The cutter must have been gutted it fell short of 30 carats by only 0.25ct!!!

x x x

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2008 9:35:49 AM
Author: Cleo

Date: 4/21/2008 9:30:57 AM
Author: Lorelei

29.75 carats.

Splinter, you are a riot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

29.75 carats... hmm...

I suppose I could use it as a sidestone to the main attraction

100 cts might just do it...

*fantasising*

I would *totally* wear 29.75 carats as a ring Everyone would think it was a CZ, so I''d never get mugged for it!

The cutter must have been gutted it fell short of 30 carats by only 0.25ct!!!

x x x

Oops - slightly off with my figures, here is the story of Liz''s diamond! According to the book " With this Ring."

The 29.4 carat Emerald cut diamond was given to Liz Taylor from film producer Mike Todd, whilst she was in the process of divorcing second Hubby Michael Wilding. Apparently Liz liked to joke with the press that the ring '' was not quite thirty but only 29 and a half carats..." if one wishes to spilt carat hairs....

 

[Splinter]

I''ve just had this image stuck in my head since I read the above few posts...

Alternative text: "Yeah, ok... but is it AGS0?"

 

[Cleo]

Only 29.4 carats?

Well, in that case she can keep it...

Hehehehe.

x x x

 

[Cleo]

Date: 4/21/2008 11:23:48 AM
Author: Splinter
I've just had this image stuck in my head since I read the above few posts...

Alternative text: 'Yeah, ok... but is it AGS0?'

You are just cracking me up laughing!

If that person on the right had waist-length hair it would be MEEEEEEEEE!!!

x x x

*ETA* There are still PSers that would debate whether or not to add a halo to it!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2008 11:23:48 AM
Author: Splinter
I''ve just had this image stuck in my head since I read the above few posts...

Alternative text: ''Yeah, ok... but is it AGS0?''

Hehehehe!!!!