Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Which super ideal would you choose?

Which would you choose?

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
P

Peabody

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Messages
1
To *my* eyes, the SI1 appears eye clean as well as shows less body color in the video, so coupled with the price break, I would probably go with that one. But that’s me ... others may feel differently.
 
Can you go to CBI in idaho ? and see them in person? or have them sent to you? I would choose the less expensive if they si1 is clear and not cloudy, but seeing them in person would be best.
 
I'd prefer the H VS2 but if the SI1 is eye clean then flip a coin.
 
H VS2, but the body color does look quite tinted on the video at least.
 
Even though they seem to have very similar dimensions (I love those 55 percent tables), I like the proportions of the H SI1 stone. It also appears so much whiter than the H VS2 stone. And it appears brighter. (HPD reps kind of assured me that all CBI diamonds had similar appearances but these videos seem to indicate otherwise. The H SI1 is so much brighter, maybe that’s an illusion to due lighter body color). I would call in that particular diamond and see it in person (there might be a CBI vendor near you who HPD could send their stone to for you to see). My only concern with the SI1 is if you can see the inclusions or if you are the type of person who needs mind clean. That plot does look pretty included. I own a .95 E SI1 CBI and I never notice the inclusions. I like my stone very much, it’s explosively beautiful. I hope you like what you see as well! Good luck!
 
VS2.
I do not like that girdle treatment on the SI1
 
Last edited:
flyingpig said:
Actually, all over, especially at 9 and 1030.
I am surprised to see it is a CBI.
Click to expand...

The crown digging in this diamond is extremely minor. Maybe 1 or 2 degrees. If the digging isn't enough to cause those characteristic green "claws" between the arrow shafts (wihch is the telltale sign of digging-induced light performance deterioration) then I highly doubt ANYONE would be able to see any difference IRL.
 
Looks eye clean at si1. I too prefer the aset of the vs2 but would ask hpd to video them next to each other (although unlikely to show much difference) and ask their opinion on difference (if any) in personality between both diamonds. @LaylaR @Wink @Paul-Antwerp
 
Hello and thanks for the comments @gm89uk . I was asked to provide info here.

blueMA said:
H VS2, but the body color does look quite tinted on the video at least.
Click to expand...

I agree about that video. It may be a reflection of something in the environment (?) In any case, we have provided a new 360-video for the 1.73 H VS2 for HPD, which can be found here.

https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10501

flyingpig said:
The girdle is dug out.
Click to expand...

There is no painting or digging in our process. We use normal indexing. With that said, the lab uses non-contact scanners which can create phantoms in their CGI. Those scans are reliable for broad judgment, but not for making micro analyses about brillianteering minutia or optical precision.

I can point to the AGS report for HPD10565 1.73 H SI1 for example:
  • The top set of graphics are the computer-simulations
  • The bottom set are actual photos of the diamond

10565-sim-v-actual.jpg

Don’t get me wrong. Scan technology is amazing and has come a long way. But these devices start with a published error of ± 10 microns linear / ± 0.1 degree angular, which is pretty wide for the most analytic in the Pricescope crowd. Failure to calibrate frequently, detritus on the stage or ground vibrations during a scan can create further error.

If the CGI was the reason to suspect ‘digging’ by some rogue polisher I hope I’ve corrected the impression. No one will be flogged, or kicked off our team =)

Actual photos are more reliable than CGI. It's the reason cut-focused online sellers go to the time and expense of employing someone to make ASET and H&A images in-house. But even photos and videos can be influenced by something in their environment. Ultimately there is no substitute for in-person analysis.
 
John Pollard said:
Hello and thanks for the comments @gm89uk . I was asked to provide info here.



I agree about that video. It may be a reflection of something in the environment (?) In any case, we have provided a new 360-video for the 1.73 H VS2 for HPD, which can be found here.

https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10501



There is no painting or digging in our process. We use normal indexing. With that said, the lab uses non-contact scanners which can create phantoms in their CGI. Those scans are reliable for broad judgment, but not for making micro analyses about brillianteering minutia or optical precision.

I can point to the AGS report for HPD10565 1.73 H SI1 for example:
  • The top set of graphics are the computer-simulations
  • The bottom set are actual photos of the diamond

10565-sim-v-actual.jpg

Don’t get me wrong. Scan technology is amazing and has come a long way. But these devices start with a published error of ± 10 microns linear / ± 0.1 degree angular, which is pretty wide for the most analytic in the Pricescope crowd. Failure to calibrate frequently, detritus on the stage or ground vibrations during a scan can create further error.

If the CGI was the reason to suspect ‘digging’ by some rogue polisher I hope I’ve corrected the impression. No one will be flogged, or kicked off our team =)

Actual photos are more reliable than CGI. It's the reason cut-focused online sellers go to the time and expense of employing someone to make ASET and H&A images in-house. But even photos and videos can be influenced by something in their environment. Ultimately there is no substitute for in-person analysis.
Click to expand...


Thank you for taking the time to explain.
 
John Pollard said:
Hello and thanks for the comments @gm89uk . I was asked to provide info here.



I agree about that video. It may be a reflection of something in the environment (?) In any case, we have provided a new 360-video for the 1.73 H VS2 for HPD, which can be found here.

https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10501



There is no painting or digging in our process. We use normal indexing. With that said, the lab uses non-contact scanners which can create phantoms in their CGI. Those scans are reliable for broad judgment, but not for making micro analyses about brillianteering minutia or optical precision.

I can point to the AGS report for HPD10565 1.73 H SI1 for example:
  • The top set of graphics are the computer-simulations
  • The bottom set are actual photos of the diamond

10565-sim-v-actual.jpg

Don’t get me wrong. Scan technology is amazing and has come a long way. But these devices start with a published error of ± 10 microns linear / ± 0.1 degree angular, which is pretty wide for the most analytic in the Pricescope crowd. Failure to calibrate frequently, detritus on the stage or ground vibrations during a scan can create further error.

If the CGI was the reason to suspect ‘digging’ by some rogue polisher I hope I’ve corrected the impression. No one will be flogged, or kicked off our team =)

Actual photos are more reliable than CGI. It's the reason cut-focused online sellers go to the time and expense of employing someone to make ASET and H&A images in-house. But even photos and videos can be influenced by something in their environment. Ultimately there is no substitute for in-person analysis.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. @flyingpig correct me if I'm wrong, but I think flyingpig was talking about these areas on the actual images.

vs2 left, si1 right.
dig.png
 
I’d do what John suggests. Get a side by side video and an assessment by Wink, Layla and Melissa. Then decide which one you want to see in person. These seem like things that won’t be noticeable in person. YMMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top