Why can't I find a diamond with the "ideal" specs?

[msop04]

...I kinda thought that one was too good to be true! UGH!! (dang sample images!)

 

[yssie]

...I kinda thought that one was too good to be true! UGH!! (dang sample images!)

Yeah... that sample doesn't look like what you'd expect given the proportions! I was scratching my head for a minute there too.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

OP, put that I VS1 msop found on hold right now!!
Doesn't get better than that by any metric

There is a vote of confidence I will take to the bank!

Regarding your original question, very very few diamonds are cut in the 1.4 to 1.5 range. That is because there is a huge price increase a 1.5ct and most cutters will do whatever it takes to eke out an extra .10ct and make that bump in per carat price! The largest inventory is just over 1ct, just over 1.2ct, just over 1.5ct... all major price bumps. If you wanted a 1.2ct or a 1.55ct you would have many more options.

Gosh, this is so strange to me, but true! My 2.43 cost significantly less than a 2.50 with the exact same specs!! ...sooooo worth it to find a diamond just below the cutoffs!!

My understanding is that the big price jumps within carat ranges don't necessarily apply above 2 cts. You see the big increase at the full carat mark and just more steady increases in between, just for informational purposes.

I love the stone you put on hold!

 

[Christina...]

another vote for the stone you have on hold!

 

[Dreamer_D]

OP, put that I VS1 msop found on hold right now!!
Doesn't get better than that by any metric

There is a vote of confidence I will take to the bank!

Regarding your original question, very very few diamonds are cut in the 1.4 to 1.5 range. That is because there is a huge price increase a 1.5ct and most cutters will do whatever it takes to eke out an extra .10ct and make that bump in per carat price! The largest inventory is just over 1ct, just over 1.2ct, just over 1.5ct... all major price bumps. If you wanted a 1.2ct or a 1.55ct you would have many more options.

Gosh, this is so strange to me, but true! My 2.43 cost significantly less than a 2.50 with the exact same specs!! ...sooooo worth it to find a diamond just below the cutoffs!!

There may have been other reasons for that price difference. Apparently there is not a major price jump at 2.5ct across the board once you hit 2ct its every 1ct thereafter.

ETA: DS beat me to it!

 

[msop04]

Gosh, this is so strange to me, but true! My 2.43 cost significantly less than a 2.50 with the exact same specs!! ...sooooo worth it to find a diamond just below the cutoffs!!

There may have been other reasons for that price difference. Apparently there is not a major price jump at 2.5ct across the board once you hit 2ct its every 1ct thereafter.

ETA: DS beat me to it![/quote]

Maybe so... it was almost $4K less than the 2.5 ct. Hmmmm... who knows?? It was the first stone my SA pulled, but kinda freaked when he saw the price, then he pulled several others that were just under and they were all less. Maybe the 2.5 was slightly better cut?? I thought it looked the same as the one I got though -- SCORE!!

Sorry for the thread jack, OP!!

 

[deviate]

Thanks for all the input and special thanks to msop for finding the diamond! I've put the diamond on hold:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.51-carat-i-color-vs1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-242826

I'm probably going to take the other 2 msop suggested and request an idealscope since I'm allowed up to 3. I'm wondering if I should wait and see if something else come along say 1.45 SI1 clean to the eye to get a better value or would I be pretty stupid to pass on the one I have on hold?

 

[msop04]

Thanks for all the input and special thanks to msop for finding the diamond! I've put the diamond on hold:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.51-carat-i-color-vs1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-242826

I'm probably going to take the other 2 msop suggested and request an idealscope since I'm allowed up to 3. I'm wondering if I should wait and see if something else come along say 1.45 SI1 clean to the eye to get a better value or would I be pretty stupid to pass on the one I have on hold?

In a word... YES!! It would be really difficult to find something with the same specs -- I can't believe how awesome that stone is!!

 

[deviate]

Thanks for all the input and special thanks to msop for finding the diamond! I've put the diamond on hold:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.51-carat-i-color-vs1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-242826

I'm probably going to take the other 2 msop suggested and request an idealscope since I'm allowed up to 3. I'm wondering if I should wait and see if something else come along say 1.45 SI1 clean to the eye to get a better value or would I be pretty stupid to pass on the one I have on hold?

In a word... YES!! It would be really difficult to find something with the same specs -- I can't believe how awesome that stone is!!

I know for the HCA 0-2 is excellent but does a lower score mean it'll be better? What do you think of this one?

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.52-carat-i-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-232164

EDIT: It scores a 0.6 HCA

 

[msop04]

I know for the HCA 0-2 is excellent but does a lower score mean it'll be better? What do you think of this one?

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.52-carat-i-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-232164

EDIT: It scores a 0.6 HCA

No, a 0.9 would not be any better than a 1.6... and the 1.52 above isn't near as clean. Dude, get that I/VS1!!

 

[deviate]

I know for the HCA 0-2 is excellent but does a lower score mean it'll be better? What do you think of this one?

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.52-carat-i-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-232164

EDIT: It scores a 0.6 HCA

No, a 0.9 would not be any better than a 1.6... and the 1.52 above isn't near as clean. Dude, get that I/VS1!!

LOL! I really appreciate the help, thanks again!

 

[msop04]

No problem!!!

 

[Christina...]

msop04 is correct, anything under 2 is worthy further investigation. JA will provide 3 idealscope images and side by side gemological evaluations for free, so I don't think it would hurt to include the 1.52 in that evaluation.

 

[deviate]

I have a question about the I colour. If it's everyday wear and say someone has a E colour and they both have the ring on, will it be really easy to tell the colour difference? I'm just wondering if people can really tell white vs a slight yellow once it's on a ring vs against a white piece of paper?

 

[Christina...]

Color is graded upside down against a white background because it is a so very difficult to determine color face up and set into a ring. A well cut stone also appear whiter and brighter than a poorly cut stone. So, in your example, I don't think that the color differences will be easy to compare, however, if both stones were viewed through the pavilion it may be possible to see color differences. Women very seldom will compare their stones from this angle though, unless specifically looking for these color differences. All of that said, H/I is where most people will be able to detect body color differences. I think a well cut I faces up nice and white, however if you are particularly color sensitive and any hint of color will bother you, you may want to consider a higher color grade.

 

[yssie]

Ditto Christina... there are lots of things to consider. I think comparing this I to a well-cut E of similar size, yes, you'll probably see a difference in body colour.
I say similar size because larger stones can concentrate colour (more layers of tinted material), and larger stones have larger facets and larger/smaller facets play with light differently, so if you're comparing different coloured stones of significantly different sizes it's much harder to isolate just the effects of body colour...

Is she particularly colour-sensitive? Does she come from a culture that traditionally values high colour & clarity? Do you think such a comparison is likely to come up (competitive sibling w/ a 2.5ct E)? Do you think she would react strongly (negatively) to such a comparison, if it came up? Do you think she'd react strongly (negatively) enough to sacrifice carat, say, for a higher colour?

To be clear: an I of this size is NOT going to look "yellowish", "dingy", "warm", or anything like that - it will look like a bright white diamond, no ifs/ands/buts. The only time it may not look quite as bright white is when compared side by side to a higher coloured stone.

 

[MissGotRocks]

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2972966.htm

Here's a stone with stellar specs - might be a bit above your price range but it is a super ideal cut stone from WhiteFlash's ACA line.

 

[deviate]

Christina and Yssie, thank you for the detailed explanation. I think "I" should be ok. I remember when we first looked around at diamonds she said she wanted a F or G but then when she saw her friend's "I" you said she couldn't even tell the difference. I am going to request an Ideal scope for the diamond I have on hold along with 3 others and I'll post the requests when I get them. Thanks again for all your help, I would be lost without everybody's kindness.

 

[deviate]

I did some more searching and I would like to hear your thoughts on the following:

http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd-3760456-1.51-carat-Round-diamond-I-color-SI1-Clarity.aspx?sku=3760456&utm_source=pricescope.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pricescope.com

HCA 1.6

http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd-3746556-1.59-carat-Round-diamond-I-color-VS2-Clarity.aspx?sku=3746556&utm_source=pricescope.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pricescope.com

HCA 0.9

Thanks

 

[astar11]

Yes that's true. H&A designation is not a standardized assessment, so different vendors, especially B&M stores, will call something H&A that another may not. Some people say "oh it has arrows and hearts so it must be H&A", whereas others will be very picky about the uniformity of the arrows, the size and alignment of the clefts of the hearts, etc.

Don't limit your search to either "designation" - ideal cut stones (i.e. AGS 0 for example) may not exhibit perfect hearts but still put out a fantastic light show. And vice versa - a stone may have great H&A, but the angles of the srown & pavillion may not play well together and the stone will have leakage of light. BUT - most of the time, if a cutter is that precise in defining the H&A they are also going to watch the angles.

I'm gonna have to disagree with the statement that H&A are brighter than all excellent cut diamonds. Very few can tell the difference (unaided eye) in a branded H&A and a stone that just missed the cut . H&A is a branded cut. It is cut perfectly, but not worth the premium you pay to have the name. Personally, I'd rather find an unbranded stone that missed H&A status by something really trivial and pay a lot less. It's always been my opinion that it's a shame to pay for something that won't/can't be appreciated. No one will be able to tell by just looking at it with the unaided eye.

I do agree with the bolded, however.

Can you please share which part of H&A is really trivial?

 

[msop04]

I'm gonna have to disagree with the statement that H&A are brighter than all excellent cut diamonds. Very few can tell the difference (unaided eye) in a branded H&A and a stone that just missed the cut . H&A is a branded cut. It is cut perfectly, but not worth the premium you pay to have the name. Personally, I'd rather find an unbranded stone that missed H&A status by something really trivial and pay a lot less. It's always been my opinion that it's a shame to pay for something that won't/can't be appreciated. No one will be able to tell by just looking at it with the unaided eye.

I do agree with the bolded, however.

Can you please share which part of H&A is really trivial?

Sure! Since H&A describes an optical symmetry characteristic, it's not a measure of brilliance or performance -- different things. The performance of a stone is dependent on its proportions. A stone can get H&A optical symm with the necessary pattern but still have very poor optical performance (although, this is a rarity from what I've seen) and vice versa. IRL, the H&A pattern isn't an obvious black like you see in photos or through the viewers jewelers will use to show a client the pattern. You'd have to hold the diamond a certain way to see the arrows, and they'll appear like a flash of color. And you wouldn't see the hearts once the stone is set anyway. So, to me, the branding is trivial. This is my opinion, of course.

Don't get me wrong, I think H&A are totally gorgeous -- but for my money, I wouldn't pay the premium for it... especially when I can find an equally great performer for a lot less cash! If there were no budget, then why not?? However, in this thread, the OP does have a budget and wanted to maximize it to give his GF the 1.5 ct she really wants. Personally, I wouldn't pay the premium on something I couldn't appreciate... which is why I would recommend forgoing H&A branding (in this situation) for another flippin' awesome stone (in a higher carat weight/larger dimensions) that still fits into his budget. And I think he's got an amazing stone on hold that fits all those criteria!

 

[msop04]

Also, I didn't say that H&A was trivial. I said that the minute differences can be trivial (to me) when compared with a really great non-H&A branded stone, thus my reasoning for not paying the premium for the branding.

 

[yssie]

*double

 

[yssie]

Also, I didn't say that H&A was trivial. I said that the minute differences can be trivial (to me) when compared with a really great non-H&A branded stone, thus my reasoning for not paying the premium for the branding.

That. There ARE differences, but some people value them and some people don't! The excellent radial optical symmetry can alter both (average) size and (total) number of (Karl's terms) "effective" and "ineffective" primary and tertiary VFs.

Defining VFs as in this article by AGSL: http://www.agslab.com/spie/spie_lo_res.pdf

The primary virtual facets represent the pattern of reflections of facets and reflections of reflections that yields the primary refraction pattern (pattern of initial exiting refractions of incident light through the crown).
Assuming RI of air = 1 and RI of diamond = 2.42,
Reflectivity = [(RIr-RIi)/(RIi+RIr)]^2 = [(2.42-1)/(1+2.42)]^2 ~ 17%
So also assuming total internal reflection has total energy conservation, then for each exiting refraction ~83% of the ray's energy will be refracted out of the stone to your eyes in the primary refraction pattern and ~17% will be reflected back into the stone. Some percentage of that 17% will be angled to reflect internally (again) and will ultimately reach the crown diamond/air bound (again), and this secondary refraction pattern outlines the multitude of secondary VFs...

Well, if we're nitpicking that's not quite right either - light disperses as soon as it refracts into the stone and each individual wavelength reflects internally separately (slightly different critical angles) - from this old PS article by Bruce Harding: https://www.pricescope.com/journal/fractioning_color_gem
Red: wavelength = 640, RI = 2.41, CriticalAngle = 24.5
Green: wavelength = 520, RI = 2.43, CA = 24.3
Blue: wavelength = 440, RI = 2.45, CA = 24.1 (should probably actually look for a curve for violet)
So reflectivity of different wavelengths (colours) would actually be slightly different IRL... but that's nitpicking

Every single one of those primary/secondary/tertiary VFs is always doing one of three things - returning light, obstructing, or leaking. Some VFs are large enough that you can appreciate what they're doing at any given instant in any given lighting type and some are so small your eyes can't pick them up at all, but they're still there taking up space and doing one of those three things. Some of those tiny VFs might be configured to "work together" in clumps - maybe they're all similarly angled so they all return light, obstruct, or leak in unison, a pseudo larger-VF... mostly they'll do their own thing though. And since we can't resolve what each one is doing individually, all we see the aggregate effect - an area that's just hazy, cloudy mush. And of course the mush could be large enough to clearly delineate IRL or tiny...

Optical symmetry denotes the symmetry of reflections of facets and reflections of reflections that ultimately determines the refraction patterns. A more symmetric reflection pattern (function of how the 57/58 physical facets are oriented) has the potential to produce fewer unwanted areas of tiny, useless groups of VFs because fewer rays are reflecting and decomposing unpredictably (asymmetrically), which increases the average VF size, increases the proportion of larger/smaller VFs, and reduces the total number of VFs. Wink often talks about a certain "crispness" that true H&As exhibit and I think this is what he's talking about.


But ditto msop - high optical symmetry does not inherently suggest a certain flavour or "quality" of performance! Realistically vendors who pay the cutting premium to precision-cut stones that show picture perfect H&A are also going to ensure that those stones are proportioned to certain standards. Some vendors have very tight proportions requirements for their branded H&A lines - WF's ACAs, BGD's signatures, and other vendors like GOG will include stones with a variety of proportions as long as they exhibit excellent optical symmetry. It's not that one model is better than the other - just different!

And so... what difference does that actually make IRL? I think the PS consensus is that the visual differences between a stone with decent optical symmetry and one with poor optical symmetry are indisputable, but discussions about the advantages of super-duper optical symmetry over excellent-but-not-super-duper optical symmetry can get heated! There are lots of other practical reasons to choose branded stones - they often come with better policies, warranties, and guarantees, they're often easier to buy (just pick one by carat/colour/clarity because cut's been taken care of for you), when you're shopping online you're probably looking at in-house stones that the vendor can examine for you right away vs. virtual stones that they'd have to call in... I personally chose a non-branded stone because I wanted to buy from WF but there weren't any ESs with the specs I was looking for (the PS line didn't exist yet) and like msop I don't value super-duper optical symmetry and didn't want to pay the brand premium.

 

[deviate]

I did some more searching and I would like to hear your thoughts on the following:

http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd-3760456-1.51-carat-Round-diamond-I-color-SI1-Clarity.aspx?sku=3760456&utm_source=pricescope.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pricescope.com

HCA 1.6

http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd-3746556-1.59-carat-Round-diamond-I-color-VS2-Clarity.aspx?sku=3746556&utm_source=pricescope.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pricescope.com

HCA 0.9

Thanks

Any opinions on the 2 diamonds from b2cjewels or pass on them?

 

[yssie]

I did some more searching and I would like to hear your thoughts on the following:

http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd-3760456-1.51-carat-Round-diamond-I-color-SI1-Clarity.aspx?sku=3760456&utm_source=pricescope.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pricescope.com
Get more info
HCA 1.6

http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd-3746556-1.59-carat-Round-diamond-I-color-VS2-Clarity.aspx?sku=3746556&utm_source=pricescope.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pricescope.com
No flags, have it shipped out to look at in-person if you're interested
HCA 0.9

Thanks

Any opinions on the 2 diamonds from b2cjewels or pass on them?

 

[deviate]

Unfortunately I'm in Canada so it won't be free shipping. I'm going to have to rely on photo's and images so perhaps my best bet is to go with James Allen as they provide the most information and real photo's of the diamonds.

 

[msop04]

...The primary virtual facets represent the pattern of reflections of facets and reflections of reflections that yields the primary refraction pattern (pattern of initial exiting refractions of incident light through the crown).
Assuming RI of air = 1 and RI of diamond = 2.42,
Reflectivity = [(RIr-RIi)/(RIi+RIr)]^2 = [(2.42-1)/(1+2.42)]^2 ~ 17%*

*this is where ya lost me!
That's some advanced math that I promised I'd never EVER return to upon passing my boards!!

Yssie, I'm quite impressed with your knowledge!! Maybe one day I'll be able to throw out the big girl stats with ya... that's a lie -- I'll leave that to you guys!!

 

[Christina...]

...The primary virtual facets represent the pattern of reflections of facets and reflections of reflections that yields the primary refraction pattern (pattern of initial exiting refractions of incident light through the crown).
Assuming RI of air = 1 and RI of diamond = 2.42,
Reflectivity = [(RIr-RIi)/(RIi+RIr)]^2 = [(2.42-1)/(1+2.42)]^2 ~ 17%*

*this is where ya lost me!
That's some advanced math that I promised I'd never EVER return to upon passing my boards!!

Yssie, I'm quite impressed with your knowledge!! Maybe one day I'll be able to throw out the big girl stats with ya... that's a lie -- I'll leave that to you guys!!

I've been chasing her around for years and I still can't follow!

 

[distracts]

What I got from this thread is that science makes things sparkly.