Which one?

[BurtDiesel]

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-256915.htm


http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-273551.htm


Any thoughts....or alternatives?

 

[neatfreak]

First one because it faces up a bit bigger, it''s a higher color, AND it''s cheaper. Plus it''s a tad more round.

 

[mbr102865]

of the two above, I would vote for #2, but take a look at this:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/1937/

best!

 

[BurtDiesel]

The GOG has Fluorescences which I want to stay away from.

I have seen instances where the sarin reports on diamonds have slightly different angles and % than the AGS certificate. Is the sarin the gospel? Depending on which info you use you can get different HCA scores.

For instance, the second one scores a 1 on the HCA with the AGS cert but a 1.4 using the Sarin. I know that the difference between the two scores probably doesnt mean much.

 

[Hammurabi]

I vote for one, same reason as neatfreak, face bigger, cheaper, higher color.

Then again, i am just a newbie, dont really know much about diamonds.

 

[boston_jeff]

Is there a reason you are anti-fluorescence? Just wondering...

I''d go with #1.

 

[Regular Guy]

Ditto on one, with the color a better trade for clarity, especially with vs2 as an alternative. And, on measurements, in agreement with WF''s position on this, they would defer to AGS as the more correct measurement.

 

[peridot83]

I vote 1, since they''re both excellent and face up the same, 1 is cheaper. However, take notice that #1 has very strong arrows/contrast pattern. #2 has thinner arrows, less contrast, just bright.

Which pattern you like more is completely personal presence.

 

[BurtDiesel]

Does that go to say #1 would have more fire and #2 more brilliance (I guess by default) due to the more pronounced arrows (contrast) in #1?

 

[BurtDiesel]

No reason to be anti-florescent...I figure there is no need to add what you dont understand. I have read both good and bad threads on florescence.

 

[fabcrab]

My vote is for number #1 because it''s cheaper and I find color more important than clarity. They''re both ACA so I don''t think you can really go wrong with either or.

 

[jayreneepea]

Here''s one that is a combo of the two and you can save a few bucks;

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-260695.htm

Of the two you posted, I''d pick the first one.

 

[peridot83]

I don''t think it''s a fire/brilliance thing, though someone w/ more expertese could correct me. It''s just a differnce in aesthetics. Here''s a picture of JCrow''s ring that shows strong arrows:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/jcrow-your-avatar.61386/

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/9/2007 11:49:55 PM
Author: peridot83
I don''t think it''s a fire/brilliance thing, though someone w/ more expertese could correct me. It''s just a differnce in aesthetics. Here''s a picture of JCrow''s ring that shows strong arrows:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/jcrow-your-avatar.61386/

Fat/ thin arrows depend on the measurement of the lower girdle facets ( lgf)

 

[BurtDiesel]

I just read that the lower on gog that the lower girdle % would drive the width of the arrows
http://www.goodoldgold.com/Articles/MinorFacets/
, and that the larger % tend to have more scintillation/sparkle. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[Lorelei]

See this page also http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds_info/t/articles.aspx?articleid=154&zoneid=14 which goes also into more detail for anyone interested.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/10/2007 7:18:59 AM
Author: BurtDiesel
I just read that the lower on gog that the lower girdle % would drive the width of the arrows
http://www.goodoldgold.com/Articles/MinorFacets/
, and that the larger % tend to have more scintillation/sparkle. Can anyone confirm this?

Very short/fatter LGF''s will give off mainly chunky/bold flashes.

Longer/skinnier LGF''s will give off some pin flash mixed with bold flashes.

Very long/skinny LGF''s will give off needle like pin flash.


As to which is "more", that is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[BurtDiesel]

How about his one?

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-57696.htm

It is not a ACA but seems to have great HCA scores. I wonder what keeps it from being an HCA. Any thoughts?

 

[belle]

Date: 5/10/2007 4:33:51 PM
Author: BurtDiesel
How about his one?

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-57696.htm

It is not a ACA but seems to have great HCA scores. I wonder what keeps it from being an HCA. Any thoughts?

sweet!

looks like the ''excellent'' in polish and symmetry kept it from being aca. i''d take that any day!

 

[Ellen]

Looks like it would be a very pretty diamond!

 

[BurtDiesel]

What would cause an excel vs ideal...Would it be a facet issue? Am I better off just getting an ACA?

 

[belle]

Date: 5/10/2007 5:11:15 PM
Author: BurtDiesel
What would cause an excel vs ideal...Would it be a facet issue? Am I better off just getting an ACA?

there is no visible difference between excellent and ideal p/s. they are extremely excruciating details of craftsmanship. ags has a certain standard that they measure as 'ideal'. if a diamond doesn't quite meet that, it may receive 'excellent'. neither you or i could ever tell the difference but some gemologist geek (said in the most endearing way!) with a microscope can. it's not a reason in itself to delve into an aca but if you want the peace of mind, go for it.

 

[BurtDiesel]

Ellen,

I saw pics on your ring in the fire thread...very nice. What are the stats?

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/10/2007 8:17:41 PM
Author: BurtDiesel
Ellen,

I saw pics on your ring in the fire thread...very nice. What are the stats?

Thanks!

Not sure just how much info you want...

1.40 G VS1
GIA cut grade Excellent
Polish Ex
Symmetry Ex
Flourescence Faint
Girdle 1.12%
Depth 61.19
Table 56.06
CA 34.05
PA 41.00

Lemme know if there''s something else you wanted to know.