Which would you pick?

[doppelstern]

What do you guys think about these two diamonds I have on hold?

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...at-f-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-10427589 ($9170)


versus

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...at-f-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-10534382 ($8720; no Idealscope available)



They may both have a bit of blue nuance - maybe more gray undertones in 10427589, which is a negative for me personally. One JA representative attributed the gray to different lighting conditions and said both Fs would appear colorless. But 10427589 does have nice Idealscope images, and noted Hearts & Arrows designation on its IGI certificate.

The 10534382 has perhaps slightly more ideal crown and pavilion cut proportions, and typically appears (to people I have polled) to have more fire and brilliance in 360° superzoom.

What do you all think? Many thanks in advance!

 

[lookingforsparkle]

I'm not an expert, but I think 10534382 will have a lot more fire. If you like fire, I'd choose that one.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

There is nothing at all in the protortion differences - they are both going to look identical and very fine indeed.

 

[lookingforsparkle]

Garry, I'm still learning. Doesn't the deeper crown angle mean more fire? Or is it not enough difference to matter in this case?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

34 to 36 would be visible. 34-35 might be to someone with a lot of experiance in one environment.
Assuming of course that the pavilion angle is right for that crown angle.

 

[lookingforsparkle]

34 to 36 would be visible. 34-35 might be to someone with a lot of experiance in one environment.
Assuming of course that the pavilion angle is right for that crown angle.

Garry, Thanks for posting this table. It is one of the best examples I've seen to explain the proportions necessary to get different effects ranging from brilliant to fiery. I truly appreciate learning about the various factors involved in making a beautiful diamond.

 

[doppelstern]

Thank you for posting that very informative chart, @Garry H (Cut Nut)!

While my diamond exchange is queuing for inspection, my order can't go into production yet either way... Now I have the following two diamonds on hold, and I'd love to hear you guys weigh in.

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...at-f-color-vs1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-10533973 ($10940)

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...at-f-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-10427589 ($9170 - one of the two stones from my original post)

I can't find anything about 10533973 that indicates a "better" cut, but its 40x superzoom photos are blindingly bright.


No Idealscopes are available for 10533973.

Cut estimator doesn't seem to indicate a "better" cut.

10533973:


10427589:


10533973 seems to have slightly flawed arrows at 5, 6, and 7 o'clock.


10427589 has nearly flawless arrows:


What is going on here? What has caused 10533973 to photograph so bright?

Is 10533973 a once-in-a-lifetime stone? (Well, would you say it is worth paying $2K more?)

Many thanks in advance.

 

[doppelstern]

@lovedogs @anangel @xoulsinz (saw your discussion from a December thread) would you mind taking a look at these two diamonds on superzoom and sharing your thoughts?
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...at-f-color-vs1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-10533973 ($10940)
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...at-f-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-10427589 ($9170)

From the HCA...

10533973 came up on the HCA search:


10533973 stats run manually:


10427589 stats run manually (not sure why I couldn't find it):


HCA seems to indicate that the two stones are comparably good but that the 10533973 has better spread. Contrary to the HCA result, 10533973 looks much more brilliant to me in superzoom. Thoughts?

 

[anangel]

Can they get you ideal scopes images? I like the portions on the 2.63 better, and felt the arrows in the video were better. There was nothing wrong with the first one, and it certainly falls within PS recommended portions, but I’m not a fan of really skinny arrows. Under 1 on the HCA also makes me apprehensive; some have a .9 with no darking regardless of light source but others report them going dark when direct like is obstructed.
both are F color so no tint issues. If you have the the clarity plot of the second, I’d be curious to take a look, still a VS2 should be eye clean under normal viewing distances.
good luck!

 

[doppelstern]

I can't get Idealscope images for the 2.77 ct because of COVID...

From what I gather, you're saying there's no point in paying $2K extra for the brilliance in the 2.77 ct's superzoom, when the 0.9 HCA score could mean it goes dark in diffuse light?

Does James Allen not strive for consistency and take all of their 40x photos in diffuse light? Maybe @YoungPapa can weigh in, as to why 10533973 photographed like such an outlier?

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...at-f-color-vs1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-10533973 ($10940)
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...at-f-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-10427589 ($9170)

 

[jaysonsmom]

I can't get Idealscope images for the 2.77 ct because of COVID...

From what I gather, you're saying there's no point in paying $2K extra for the brilliance in the 2.77 ct's superzoom, when the 0.9 HCA score could mean it goes dark in diffuse light?

Does James Allen not strive for consistency and take all of their 40x photos in diffuse light? Maybe @YoungPapa can weigh in, as to why 10533973 photographed like such an outlier?

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...at-f-color-vs1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-10533973 ($10940)
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...at-f-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-10427589 ($9170)

IMHO the optical specs may be similar between the 2 stones. But there is a 0.14ct weight difference and about 0.25mm diameter increase due to the spread of 2.77ct, so visually it will look bigger (about same as a 3ct), so you are getting a great value for the $2000 difference. I would go with the 2.77ct,

 

[doppelstern]

@anangel @jaysonsmom Thanks so much for weighing in!

First world problems, I know, but my choice is not straightforward because:
(1) JA has neither clarity plot from IGI, particularly for the 2.63 ct VS2, and
(2) Because of COVID restrictions, I literally cannot get Idealscopes for the 2.77 ct VS1. I'd assume all the risk if buying with my eyes.

It's disappointing that I can't obtain Idealscopes for a purchase of this magnitude... I guess JA fundamentally believes that eventually someone else would take the chance, even if I don't.

What to do?

 

[doppelstern]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) could you please weigh in on these two? Many, many thanks in advance!!!

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...at-f-color-vs1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-10533973 ($10940)
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...at-f-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-10427589 ($9170)

I've scrutinized 10427589 and I believe it's an extremely light performant stone. What gives me pause is the possibility that 10533973 is even MORE light performant.

The 40x superzoom for 10533973 shows incredible brilliance - so much so that one wonders if JA's photo lighting setup controls weren't in place!

I cannot get Idealscopes for 10533973, since JA isn't capturing them on request during COVID. The HCA results for both stones are above on post #8. 10427589 run manually returned a 1.0 score. Strangely, the manual run 10533973 returned a 0.9 score, while the search result that linked to 10533973 returned a 1.0 score.

What do you think? Is the visual evidence of brilliance from the 40x superzoom trustworthy? Or should I play it safe and stick with 10427589? I have both stones on hold.