WHICH OF THESE TWO DIAMONDS ARE BETTER AND *WHY*???? (SPECS INCLUDED)

[Asscher102]

Hi everyone! I have 5 very important questions that I am hoping all of you could please help me out with.

Also, below the questions, I have attached a picture of two lists, side by side for comparison, with specs for two different diamonds.

1.) May I please have everyone's opinion on which of the two diamonds is better and why?

2.) Most importantly, which one of the two diamonds would appear the biggest and why?

3.) What does depth/table mean exactly?

4.) What is the best and perfect amount of depth/table that I should check for of a 0.75 ct round diamond that would make that particular carat size seem as big as possible?

5.) Is it true that despite the depth/table of the diamond, whichever one has the biggest measurements listed, then that is the diamond that will then appear the biggest? Yes or No? And Why?

If all of you could please answer each of those 5 questions for me, it would be greatly appreciated and I would be very grateful. I am looking forward to all of your wonderfully helpful responses! Thank you so much!!!!

 

[Asscher102]

P.S. Given their listed measurements, will those two 0.75 ct round diamonds look TOO SMALL on a 3 mm flat-band like the one I attached below? Or will they appear nice and big? Please let me know what you think and Why. Thank you!!!!

 

[Asscher102]

3mm Flat-Band

 

[honey22]

I am at work so I can''t give you a detailed response. Email admin and ask them to move this thread to rocky talky, you will get more help there.

You don''t want to aim for a 0.75ct that looks the biggest - you need to make sure it faces up in the correct measurements for it''s weight which basically means it''s cut well. It if ''looks bigger'' it''s cause it''s cut shallower to make it look bigger but it won''t perform (sparkle) as much. You want to aim for an Ideal (AGS 000) cut diamond, they are great performers. Have a quick read through the tutorials at the top of the page and you will learn a bit more about cut and how cut is king!

If you want a 0.75ct stone to look a bit bigger, make the band 2mm - a thinner band will make the stone pop.Or a band that tapers towards the diamond. ie the band closest the stone is thinner. If you have a 3mm band, it will make the stone appear smaller. If you search through my posts, you will find my ering thread. I have a 0.8ct stone, the setting is a 2mm band, and I think it does make the stone pop. Good luck!

 

[Asscher102]

Honey22, thank you so, so much! Your response is incredible and very helpful. If cut is most important, and I order from Adiamor.com or JamesAllen.com, and they both say "Cut: Excellent" and are GIA certified, how do I know which is better? Etc.

Also, I''m really in love with the flat-band type that I posted. I would definitely get it in a 2mm if I could find it. Do you know any places? Thank you again!

 

[Skippy123]

You need more numbers of the certs. You need the pavilion and crown angles and plug them into this tool (the HCA) http://www.pricescope.com/cutadviser.asp
You want to weed out stones not performing between 0-2. Then post the numbers of the stones which fall between 0-2 on the HCA so others can tell you which is the best stone out of your selection

 

[Lady_Disdain]

The difference in diameter between the diamonds you posted is negligiable - less that 2%. That is not noticeable (if you wish, draw two circles with diameters of 5.9 and 6.0 cms - see if you can pick out the largest without a ruler. The difference between them is the same 2%). However, a more sparkly diamond will look more impressive, so go for cut and simmetry.

I think the 3mm may be a triffle too thick for a 0.75 ct diamond. You will have approximately 1.5mm of diamond outside the band on each side. I prefer 1/3 proportions (where, if you look at the ring on your finger, a third of the diamond is above the top of the band, 1/3 is on the band and 1/3 is below the band).

I suggest you make a mock up of the ring out of paper (just cut out a "band" 3mm thick and a circle with 5.9 mm in diameter and stick them together. Bonus points if you use tin foil and glitter). This may sound silly, but it helps a lot. Or perhaps I am just a concrete person

Also, go out to a B&M store and see rings. Lots of rings.

 

[Mediterranean]

Date: 9/3/2008 4:30:43 PM
Author:Asscher102
Hi everyone! I have 5 very important questions that I am hoping all of you could please help me out with.


Also, below the questions, I have attached a picture of two lists, side by side for comparison, with specs for two different diamonds.


1.) May I please have everyone''s opinion on which of the two diamonds is better and why?


2.) Most importantly, which one of the two diamonds would appear the biggest and why?


3.) What does depth/table mean exactly?


4.) What is the best and perfect amount of depth/table that I should check for of a 0.75 ct round diamond that would make that particular carat size seem as big as possible?


5.) Is it true that despite the depth/table of the diamond, whichever one has the biggest measurements listed, then that is the diamond that will then appear the biggest? Yes or No? And Why?


If all of you could please answer each of those 5 questions for me, it would be greatly appreciated and I would be very grateful. I am looking forward to all of your wonderfully helpful responses! Thank you so much!!!!

#1 Not enough info to tell (measurements like pavilion angle are missing)

#2 OK, this one is contentious, so PS''ers, please correct me so that I learn, too: Superficially speaking, the stone with the largest table facet will look larger. BUT (and this is huge) f the table measurement is larger because the cut has been sacrificed somehow (example: it''s too shallow) then light will leak out of the stone instead of refract off of the facets properly, thus making it "appear" smaller (stones, especially rounds, which don''t bounce the light back properly to achieve a certain degree of scintillation will appear smaller than those of the same same size which are cut to handle the light better)

#3 the DEPTH measurement of a stone is an expression of PROPORTION. The number you see for the DEPTH represents the degree of precision for THAT interval, which is used in grading the cut. The TABLE may refer ether to the actual table facet (that top one, the one you see when you look down at the top a stone from above) or TABLE may refer to the measurement/proportion percentages of said facet.

#4 This is subjective (to a degree) One poster above stated the importance of the AGS triple 0 designation, and in my opinion and in my "eyeball" experience, those measurements represent the proportions which yield the prettiest (and largest-looking) stones. It gets funky and MORE subjective with Princess cuts, but you''re looking at Round Brilliants, so I''m not going to muddy the water with all that.

#5 NO. Definitely NOT. Why? Because of the aforementioned light-leakage issues which occur when a stone is cut shallow in order to maximize the size of its table facet.


Look on Rocky-Talky for images of stones as viewed through Brilliance-scopes or the Sarin DiaVision equipment. You''ll see examples of light leakage (and examples of a LACK thereof..)

GIA and AGS have different tolerance requirements for these measurements with regards to achieving a certain "grade" with regards to cut, so you''ll have to see which set of standards appeals most to your eye (As previously stated, the AGS 000 is the gold standard for me)

Hope this helps!!!!

 

[Jenn5504]

As others have stated, more info is needed to pick the best cut of these 2.

I''ve read through some of your old posts, and from what I gather, you are after the biggest well cut stone possible.

I know that''s what I personally am all about.

Just wondered if you had consider lowering color and clarity a bit to gain some size? There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the size you''re looking at, but most of your concern seems to stem from HOW BIG WILL IT LOOK, so I bring it up. I''ve had a J and now K, SI2 and let me tell you, if you get a super cut, you would be surprised how great I-J-even K color stones look! You can''t go by what you may picture from a Mall store J or K color----if truly cut well, they will face up very white. I''m NOT trying to sway you if you are dead set on your color/clarity preferences. I normally would not ever go into this very personal topic, we all have different preferences on the C''s (all except CUT is ALWAYS king!

). But I just get the feeling from your past posts that you''re struggling to get the most bang for you buck. Just something to consider.

Looks to me, based on the price point of that JA stone, if you budged the color/clarity to I or J and SI2 and possibly I1 (eek! I know, but have you SEEN some of them? GOG and JA have certainly sold some to some PS''ers that SHOCK me at how awesome they look! I have a COMPLETELY eye clean SI2, so I have to believe that there are more out there, and that some I1''s look good, too!) that you could get to the 0.9ish ct. range! Whatever you do, stick with CUT as the priority and you won''t regret. I also think a 2mm band will help the center stone appear larger. Just my opinion though, many here may disagree with all that I said.

 

[MissGotRocks]

You could also contact WF or GOG or James Allen - there are others as well - and tell them what you are looking for in terms of size, color and clarity. They can then suggest stones within their inventory that will meet or exceed your parameters. It would be an easier way for you to maximize your budget rather than you trying to select certain stones and wondering how they will look or perform. If nothing else, it is a starting point and would be a good tutorial for you.

Good luck - it is both an exciting and confusing shopping experience! I think you would find their expertise very helpful - let us know what you come up with!

 

[honey22]

You are more than welcome! If you post your budget, we can help you find some killer ideal cut stones if you like?! We love spending other people''s money

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 9/3/2008 6:10:32 PM
Author: Skippy123
You need more numbers of the certs. You need the pavilion and crown angles and plug them into this tool (the HCA) http://www.pricescope.com/cutadviser.asp
You want to weed out stones not performing between 0-2. Then post the numbers of the stones which fall between 0-2 on the HCA so others can tell you which is the best stone out of your selection

Hi asscher,

Please post the crown and pavilion angles above, those measurements are crucial as they are what drives the light return, so post them if you can please. To tell the face up size of a diamond you need to compare the diameter measurements, the two above won't look noticeably different to each other for size. The best cut diamond could look the "biggest" however by having superior edge to edge light return, the crown and pavilion angles will help to determine this.

Out of the diamonds you listed, I would concentrate on the first one, from the info we have it could be the best cut, but the angles will tell us more.