Which cut is best or you like most?

[yrrp3738]

I am overwhelmed with stones these days. Here are a few numbers I'd like to hear your opinion technically. Assume all H&A in G/VS2. HCA numbers from my memory.

#1 GIA 3 EX
D 60.8
T 57
Crown 34
Pavilion 40.6
thin to med
HCA 0.7 3 ex 1 vg


#2 AGS 0 all ID
D 61.5
T 57
Crown 34.9
Pavilion 40.8
thin to slightly thick
HCA 1.6 3ex 1 vg

#3 AGS 0 all ID
D 61.7
T 55.7
Crown 34.7
Pavilion 40.7
thin to med
HCA 1.1 3 Ex 1 vg

#4 GIA 3 EX
D 61.8
T 56
Crown 35
Pavilion 40.6
thin to slight thick
HCA 0.9 3 EX 1 VG

 

[slg47]

I wouldn't assume H&A without hearts images.

will the vendor provide an idealscope image? that will tell more. also are 2 and 3 AGS?

1) HCA 0.7
2) HCA 1.6
3) HCA 1.1
4) HCA 0.9

so numbers look fine on all, but if H&A is important to you I would get hearts image, also idealscope image which would tell more about the diamonds

 

[yrrp3738]

BTW, I saw huge difference between Sarin and GSA report. Which one is more accurate?

 

[yrrp3738]

Yes, slg. I just corrected the spelling.

I wouldn't assume H&A without hearts images.

will the vendor provide an idealscope image? that will tell more. also are 2 and 3 AGS?

1) HCA 0.7
2) HCA 1.6
3) HCA 1.1
4) HCA 0.9

so numbers look fine on all, but if H&A is important to you I would get hearts image, also idealscope image which would tell more about the diamonds

 

[stone-cold11]

All look promising from the numbers. HCA is a rejection tool not a selection tool so do not use it as such.

Post images?

I would probably trust AGS measurement more as they did that for a living, probably have more accurate machine, better trained personnel. Post the sarin and AGS report, could be just uncertainties within the limit of the instrument.

 

[yrrp3738]

#5

crown 34.4 (34.1-34. 14.9%
Pavilion 40.6 (40.3-40.9) 42.8%

Table 56.7
Depth 61.2

Girdle Med to Sl Thick (1.7-4.4. I think there is light painting/digging out)

Star/upper ratio 55:45
LGH 77%
HCA 07 and out of AGS ideal range.

Is the variation of crown/pavilion too large? (0.2% and 0.14%)

I will try to post some images later.

 

[yrrp3738]

Here are some images:

#1





#2


#3


#5

 

[0-0-0]

I like 2 and 3.

 

[yrrp3738]

Any reasons? I don't know how to interpret the ids. To me, they all look good. Different vendor's images are different and even with the same vendor can be very different in quality/contrast/color.

I like 2 and 3.

 

[yrrp3738]

Bluenile does not provide images. However, I was always wondering how real those pictures were from those who do provide. They look so different, even from the same vendor. Here are some example I found online:









from same vendor, same color, very close in cut stone



BTW, I could not see any H&A in real life. Any special way to see them?

 

[slg47]

what do you mean you could not see any H&A in real life?

is there a vendor who has a setting you like better?

 

[Dreamer_D]

The lighting in the vendor photos is intended to show the facet pattern and the arrows (indication of facet patterning), so the various vendors use different lighting setups. The images help by telling you a little about the symmetry of the cut, and can also show leakage. Can spot a bad cut pretty well. Look at some poorly cut stones and it becomes clear (JA has some examples on their site).

To judge H&A you need to see an arrows image and a hearts image. Most vendors that you showed photos from will provide them. You pay for h&A so don't take it on faith.

 

[0-0-0]

Any reasons? I don't know how to interpret the ids. To me, they all look good. Different vendor's images are different and even with the same vendor can be very different in quality/contrast/color.

I like 2 and 3.

I prefer a pavilion angle between 40.7 and 40.9.

The inclusions in 1 bother me. The IS for 5 seems to be tilted and the range of pavilion angles is a little too wide for my preference.

Magnified images are only good for showing patterning/potential leakage/inclusions.

 

[yrrp3738]

I could not find h&a from people's rings/pendant/studs, etc. even the owners said so.

what do you mean you could not see any H&A in real life?

is there a vendor who has a setting you like better?

 

[yrrp3738]

Hi thbmok, I am not quite sure what "tiled" means.

If the pavilion angel between 40.7 and 40.9, what's the best crown angel to go with it? 34-34.5?

I prefer a pavilion angle between 40.7 and 40.9.

The inclusions in 1 bother me. The IS for 5 seems to be tilted and the range of pavilion angles is a little too wide for my preference.

Magnified images are only good for showing patterning/potential leakage/inclusions.

 

[slg47]

I could not find h&a from people's rings/pendant/studs, etc. even the owners said so.

what do you mean you could not see any H&A in real life?

is there a vendor who has a setting you like better?

do you mean you could not see the pattern, or you could not find vendors who carry H&A diamonds? the hearts are only visible from the pavilion (bottom) view with a H&A viewer. You should be able to see the arrows in real life (in fact, you do not need H&A to see arrow patterning)


ETA also if some of the IS pics are slightly tilted I don't think it reflects anything about the diamonds, just differences in photography setup. All of these look like good choices, I would check if eye-clean to your specs and see what vendor's policies/settings appeal most to you!

 

[0-0-0]

Hi thbmok, I am not quite sure what "tiled" means.

If the pavilion angel between 40.7 and 40.9, what's the best crown angel to go with it? 34-34.5?

I prefer a pavilion angle between 40.7 and 40.9.

The inclusions in 1 bother me. The IS for 5 seems to be tilted and the range of pavilion angles is a little too wide for my preference.

Magnified images are only good for showing patterning/potential leakage/inclusions.

Tilted as in off-center. May want to ask for a retake of the IS for 5 if you are considering it.

From what I have seen any crown angle from 34 - 35 looks fine. I find that the pavilion angles have more impact on performance than the crown angles.

 

[yssie]

Numbers on all of those are "safe", all ISs fine. Different c/p/lgf combos will yield different nuances - a shallower stone w/ long lgf will tend toward lots of bright white sparks and twinkles, a steeper crown w/ short lgf/small table will predispose the stone toward fewer bolder flashes of colour in some types of lighting.. depends on whether you care to look, and what you prefer to see. None of them (incl #5) will look eightstar-ish, if that is your concern..

 

[Dreamer_D]

Honestly, flip a coin on any of those diamonds. They are all good. It is just personal taste to say one is better than the other.

As to seeing arrows in real life, if you mean you looked at your friends' pendants in real life, or diamonds in stores, well those may not have been well cut stones You will only see crisp arrow patterning on RB stones with certain proportions (though some people like the look of RB diamonds cut in such a way so they do not produce arrows).

 

[yrrp3738]

Hi dreamer, even the HOF stones, I only saw the h&a with help from the store's tool. And I could not find H&A from ACA and H&A stones.

 

[yrrp3738]

Since I prefer briliance over fire, I like numbers of #1 and #5 better. But worry #1 too shallow plus an obvious inclusion on the table though I was told it's eye-clean. #5 definitely not better cut compare to #2 and #3 and has less clarity than #2 and #3. #4 is not available any more, just put here for comparison. I like its proportion.

 

[slg47]

Since I prefer briliance over fire, I like numbers of #1 and #5 better. But worry #1 too shallow plus an obvious inclusion on the table though I was told it's eye-clean. #5 definitely not better cut compare to #2 and #3 and has less clarity than #2 and #3. #4 is not available any more, just put here for comparison. I like its proportion.

I don't know what you mean by definitely not better cut?

also again, you will only see hearts pattern with viewer.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Hi dreamer, even the HOF stones, I only saw the h&a with help from the store's tool. And I could not find H&A from ACA and H&A stones.

You need to know what you are looking for. Arrows are not black in person, they are silvery and only apparent in certain lighting. You cannot see hearts without a viewer.

 

[Dreamer_D]

You are splitting hairs that cannot be split I don't think any of these stones will particularly favour brilliance over fire. If you like a brilliant stone, then pick one with nice long lgf ratio, that will help a little. Judging from the arrow thickness on these diamonds, all have similar lgfs.

 

[yrrp3738]

dreamer, #1 has lg 80% from GIA which can be anything lower than it. AGS gave more acurate numbers, all in 77/78 range.

#5 is out. It was the most expensive one and I didn't ask to hold quicker and price went up again . It is same size and color/clarity with #1, but 10% more now.

I am narrowing down to #1 and #3 now.

#1 1.07 G SI1 6750 on hold. Will ask for ASET. The inclusion was told not significate and the stone eye-clean.
#3 1.14 I VS2 6650 on hold. Nothing I don't like, just the color little lower. But I like the size and clarity!

Why am I always struggling between color and size ? Please help me! Need to make decision today!

 

[Dreamer_D]

dreamer, #1 has lg 80% from GIA which can be anything lower than it. AGS gave more acurate numbers, all in 77/78 range.

#5 is out. It was the most expensive one and I didn't ask to hold quicker and price went up again . It is same size and color/clarity with #1, but 10% more now.

I am narrowing down to #1 and #3 now.

#1 1.07 G SI1 6750 on hold. Will ask for ASET. The inclusion was told not significate and the stone eye-clean. ETA: 77/78 and 80 are all longish LGFs, will favour bright light ever so slightly. You can find longer in a specialized cut GOG provides.

#3 1.14 I VS2 6650 on hold. Nothing I don't like, just the color little lower. But I like the size and clarity!

Why am I always struggling between color and size ? Please help me! Need to make decision today!

You do not need an ASET, it is not very informative for RBS, the IS image you have is more than enough. ETA: LGFs at 77/79 and 80 are all on the longer side of the range you see in traditional ideal cuts. Will look brighter, to my eye, because of slightly less contrast and will favour pin fire. You can find longer lgfs in a special cut GOG offers. #1 with its slightly shallower crown and long lgf will be the most likely to favour brightness. But the nuance will be subtle.

I would go for the G Si1, myself. The color difference will be noticable, based on my experience, the size difference will NOT be noticable (too minute to see, like .1mm). can you post the inclusion plot for #1?

 

[yrrp3738]

Here is the inclusion plot for #1. Also comments on "clouds not shown". I was told the crystal more like a feather in light color with two tiny black spots.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Here is the inclusion plot for #1. Also comments on "clouds not shown". I was told the crystal more like a feather in light color with two tiny black spots.

Clouds not shown is fine as long as the notation is not "clarity grade is based on clouds not shown". That scenerio is different than simple "clouds not shown".

You can't really tell eye cleanliness from a plot, but depending on your standards, I would say there is a possibility you could see a large-ish inclusion like that in the table in some lighting and from some distances. But that is possible with any SI1.

Who is the vendor?

 

[Dreamer_D]

What is the price and color and clarity of 2?

 

[yrrp3738]

#2 is a different story. I had it already. This stone is for different person in the family. I may end up with both #1 and #3 since relatives outside US pay much more for theimilar stones.

What is the price and color and clarity of 2?