Which would you choose? is GIA EX vs GIA VG Important?

[Overthinking_it]

Hello All,

I'm seriously debating between 4 stones and which one to buy. I have seen images on all 4 and they look good. I personally prefer to maximimize the diameter for the budget, while considering future resale value incase I trade in or up.

The 4 are as follows:

This stone is preferred for the price.

3.05ct J Si1 - Eye Clean
Dia: 9.23
Depth: 62.4%
Table: 55%
Crown Angle: 34.5°
Pavillion Angle: 40.8°
GIA X/X/X
Fluorescence: Faint
HCA 1.4
$27.5K


This following stone is rated on the HCA at 1.6, but has a GIA VG cut rating. Confirmed with no hazing from the Fluorescence

3.40ct J VS2
Dia: 9.46
Depth: 63.2%
Table: 57%
Crown Angle: 35.0°
Pavillion Angle: 40.6°
GIA VG/X/X
Fluorescence: Strong Blue
HCA 1.6
$30.5K



This stone is preferred because of the color

3.05ct G SI2 - Eye Clean
Dia:9.28
Depth: 62.3%
Table: 56%
Crown Angle: 35.0°
Pavillion Angle: 40.8°
GIA X/X/X
Fluorescence: Med Blue
HCA 1.6
$31.5K


This stone is preferred because of a mix between color and diameter, plus no Fluorescence.

3.07ct I SI1 - Eye Clean
Dia:9.35
Depth: 60.6%
Table: 59%
Crown Angle: 35.0°
Pavillion Angle: 40.8°
GIA X/X/X
Fluorescence: None
HCA 2.0
$28.5K


Any feedback on these stones from you guys would be appreciated!

Thanks!

 

[Overthinking_it]

Here are the images that were supplied.

 

[Niel]

Can you get idealscope images of these stones?

 

[Overthinking_it]

Can you get idealscope images of these stones?

I do not believe so. However, I do have an idealscope at home that I plan to inspect them with...

 

[msop04]

Fluorescence is a good thing if you want a "whiter" look... Honestly, at those sizes, you will be hard-pressed to notice a difference in them. I would go for the best cut, hands down. I have a 8.7mm round and I have looked at upgrading several times... there isn't a noticeable difference until about 9.3mm -- and these stones are already much larger than mine, so I doubt you'd notice a difference at all!

 

[msop04]

Here are the images that were supplied. I do not have a copy of the image for the 3.07 I SI1 on this computer.

It may be just bad photos, but from those provided, the "preferred stone" (3.07 I, SI1) looks really bad... and the "VG" photo looks more crisp...

 

[Overthinking_it]

It may be just bad photos, but from those provided, the "preferred stone" (3.07 I, SI1) looks really bad... and the "VG" photo looks more crisp...

Sorry, but the way the forum uploads the images is somewhat confusing so I edited the image post. The stones are identified with the color and clarity BELOW the image.

(I do not have a copy of the image for the 3.07 I SI1 at this time to show)

 

[msop04]

It may be just bad photos, but from those provided, the "preferred stone" (3.07 I, SI1) looks really bad... and the "VG" photo looks more crisp...

Sorry, but the way the forum uploads the images is somewhat confusing so I edited the image post. The stones are identified with the color and clarity BELOW the image.

(I do not have a copy of the image for the 3.07 I SI1 at this time to show)

AHHHHH.... okay, gotcha!! ...the J,SI1 looks bad, and the J,VS2 (VG cut) looks crisper from the photos provided...

 

[msop04]

The G,SI1 doesn't look good either?? Maybe it is the photos???

 

[senorpacifico]

Does any of the diamonds have a very thick or extremely thick girdles? Just wondering. Might of missed the grading reports

 

[Overthinking_it]

Does any of the diamonds have a very thick or extremely thick girdles? Just wondering. Might of missed the grading reports

Only the 3.40 has a slightly thick to thick girdle.

all the other stones appear to have medium to slightly thick.

 

[Ashleigh]

I prefer stone 1 and 3 from the numbers but prefer stone 2 from the photos. If there's no mistake in the photos, then I would give all a miss since my angle preference doesn't tally with my photo preference.

 

[JulieN]

The 3.4 J must have a thick girdle to get that kind of depth. It seems to be priced appropriately, and the picture looks good, so if that is the reason for the VG grade that would be ok.

 

[Ashleigh]

The 3.4 J must have a thick girdle to get that kind of depth. It seems to be priced appropriately, and the picture looks good, so if that is the reason for the VG grade that would be ok.

I'm glad I revisited this thread and learnt something new. It never occurred to me that thick girdle might be the culprit for the depth. Thanks

 

[Overthinking_it]

The G,SI1 doesn't look good either?? Maybe it is the photos???

I agree that the photos are not that great. I am somewhat relying upon the GIA cert and HCA cut calculator to get narrow down the stones and a reasonable picture of the stone to weed them out a little more.

I think it's time to call a few of these in and then pick my favorite, but I'm having a hard time deciding whether or not to move forward with the 3.40 VG cut with Strong Fluorescence, or go slightly smaller with a X/X/X and faint to no fluorescence....?

I personally would like a little fluorescence because of the fire and blues it would reflect, but the market tends to punish those stones heavily on the resale.

 

[msop04]

I think it's time to call a few of these in and then pick my favorite, but I'm having a hard time deciding whether or not to move forward with the 3.40 VG cut with Strong Fluorescence, or go slightly smaller with a X/X/X and faint to no fluorescence....?

I personally would like a little fluorescence because of the fire and blues it would reflect, but the market tends to punish those stones heavily on the resale.

Diamonds are not a good investment, so don't buy based on resale... just make sure your jeweler has an upgrade policy that you can live with... if you sell a diamond yourself, you will not get a lot, regardless of fluorescence. In a lower color, the fluorescence definitely a positive thing. Buy with your needs in mind (what appeals to you)... don't make the decision based on what the resale might be.

I'd buy whichever stone looks best to your eyes...

 

[GreenBling]

Another vote for 3.4 J. The other two do not look very nice... poor photography?

 

[thediamondshopper]

Hi Overthinking it,

I agree with many of the comments so far especially in that the 3.4J is largely graded a VG because of its depth. IMO this could still make for a very nice diamond despite the above average depth especially if you like a diamond with alot of fire. I wouldn't put too much weight in the photos are they are more a factor of who takes better pictures than which diamond is nicer.

I like the pairing of strong blue fluorescence with I's and J's especially, and if you have already confirmed that there is no haziness you are in the clear. I would confirm that the J color is based on a yellow and not brown tinge. If this is a GIA diamond the other thing to keep in mind is that the GIA grading environment has more UV than say AGS so the color grading will have likely already been graded partially including the effects of the strong fluorescence (ie it may very well be a K give or take by AGS standards).

I would really look over the SI's if you decide on one to make sure they are eye clean in person as larger stones are less likely to look eye clean in the SIs. Also you didnt mention the star and lower half %ages, GIA rounds these so they are a little less useful but 50 80, 50 75, 55 85 are usually good, if you can get unrounded numbers even better.

One last thing to consider in narrowing down your choices, is what you are considering for a setting, with white gold or platinum you may want to go higher on the color scale and if you are going to have side stones make sure they are not F's. If you do end up with an IJK consider yellow or rose gold, as they will offset the color of the center.

Good luck in your search

 

[msop04]

\One last thing to consider in narrowing down your choices, is what you are considering for a setting, with white gold or platinum you may want to go higher on the color scale and if you are going to have side stones make sure they are not F's. If you do end up with an IJK consider yellow or rose gold, as they will offset the color of the center.

I don't necessarily agree with this... Depending on the type of setting, I think the white metal is reflected in the stone, making it appear more white. This is seen in bezels and halos. The "original" diamond I picked out was a 2.01 ct. GIA I set in a WG 6-prong solitaire. I could see very little tint from the side. However, my 2.4 ct J in a solitaire looked white face up, but had an apparent tint since it can be viewed from the side. I had it set in a halo, not due to color, but it ended up really helping disguise the color because it was set lower and didn't show the sides!!

Unless you (or more likely the FF) really wants yellow or rose gold, I wouldn't think it's necessary. Sometimes the YG or RG can make the stone look more tinted (depending on the underlying body color of the diamond). Make sure to see the actual stone in different colored metals to make your decision -- and consult with the FF, of course. Just something to think about...

 

[thediamondshopper]

I agree you should make sure the FF likes yellow or rose gold if that is what you choose and that choice of metal will ultimately depend on the underlying tones, but in most cases platinum and white gold will show more yellow and brown than yellow or rose gold.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I don't think I'd consider a stone with a 63+ depth. You did not list the diameter of the stones, and that is where stones that are too deep suffer. In other words, the 3.4 ct stone probably faces up smaller than it should for the weight. So always compare diameter as part of the specs you are considering. To be honest, I don't think I'd buy any of the three pictured, and I would not buy an SI2 in a 3 ct stone. You'll be much better off dealing with vendors that supply better pictures and idealscope images.

 

[Overthinking_it]

You did not list the diameter of the stones.

Please see the very first post for diameters...

And yes, I too would like to use dealers with ideal scope images, but I do not have that luxury with these stones unfortunately.

Thanks!

 

[thediamondshopper]

Consider AGS diamonds, some of them have ASET images on the report. Other benefits are their 000 ideal grade is a much more exclusive cut grade and their reports offer proportions that are less rounded than GIA to name a few.