Assistance appreciated - stone comparison

[areed19]

Hi everyone! I''ve been lurking (and learning so much) for a while, but now that BF and I are actually getting very close to purchasing my e-ring, I''ve decided I need some help.

A little background: Our budget for the stone is about $1600ish. I''m okay with lower color stones, and inclusions if the stone is eye-clean. As I have learned, the cut is the most important thing! I''m hoping for something in carat size of anywhere from 0.7 to 1.0.

Here are the two current contenders: (both from excel)

As far as I can determine, #1 has a score of 2.6 on the HCA, and #2 has a HCA score of 0.7. #1 is a GIA excellent cut, whereas #2 is only very good (though I understand this may not matter that much as far as differences in appearance).. But according to the ASET/Idealscope images, #1 seems (to my not completely educated self) to perform (i.e. sparkle) better than #2. What am I missing? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.


#1 http://www.exceldiamonds.com/Loose_Round_Diamond-143/Loose_Round_0.8_Carat_L_Color_VS1_Clarity_diamond-434994.html


#2 http://www.exceldiamonds.com/Loose_Round_Diamond-143/Loose_Round_0.8_Carat_L_Color_VS1_Clarity_diamond-434993.html

 

[areed19]

Sorry -- if anyone has any better suggestions stone-wise, I would also appreciate those! Thanks!!

 

[yssie]

Date: 2/8/2010 8:24:39 PM
Author:areed19
Hi everyone! I''ve been lurking (and learning so much) for a while, but now that BF and I are actually getting very close to purchasing my e-ring, I''ve decided I need some help.

A little background: Our budget for the stone is about $1600ish. I''m okay with lower color stones, and inclusions if the stone is eye-clean. As I have learned, the cut is the most important thing! I''m hoping for something in carat size of anywhere from 0.7 to 1.0.

Here are the two current contenders: (both from excel)

As far as I can determine, #1 has a score of 2.6 on the HCA, and #2 has a HCA score of 0.7. #1 is a GIA excellent cut, whereas #2 is only very good (though I understand this may not matter that much as far as differences in appearance).. But according to the ASET/Idealscope images, #1 seems (to my not completely educated self) to perform (i.e. sparkle) better than #2. What am I missing? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.


#1 http://www.exceldiamonds.com/Loose_Round_Diamond-143/Loose_Round_0.8_Carat_L_Color_VS1_Clarity_diamond-434994.html


#2 http://www.exceldiamonds.com/Loose_Round_Diamond-143/Loose_Round_0.8_Carat_L_Color_VS1_Clarity_diamond-434993.html

#2 has slight obstruction issues - see the extra blue under table and by the arrowheads.

#1 numbers are borderline, aset looks fine but IS is wonky probably due to taking the pic at an angle. I''d go with #1.

 

[stone-cold11]

ditto.

 

[areed19]

Okay -- thanks for the input!

What about between #1 and this one at GOG - http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/5132/.

Thanks in advance for the opinions!

 

[yssie]

The GOG is H&A, if that''s important to you. Beautifully cut - can''t get better than this - but you''re paying more for smaller ct wt and unnecessarily high clarity.



It''s up to you, I''m afraid

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/8/2010 9:18:06 PM
Author: areed19
Okay -- thanks for the input!

What about between #1 and this one at GOG - http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/5132/.

Thanks in advance for the opinions!

This is one of Jon''s modified h&a which has the longer lower girdle facets, you can also see the clefts in the hearts which is quite acceptable in this modified cutting style. Some buyers, myself included, like the look of thinner lower girdle facets and the performance nuances which can result, this is why Jon has these cut.

Both are great diamonds out of the first Excel and this one, it comes down to your preferences.

 

[areed19]

Thanks everyone for the input!!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/9/2010 10:47:30 AM
Author: areed19
Thanks everyone for the input!!

You are very welcome!

 

[Bella_mezzo]

can''t wait to see what you pick Excel #1 and the GOG are great, as everyone noted.

 

[areed19]

"some buyers like the look of thinner lower girdle facets and the performance nuances "

Could you please explain further?
What are the benefits of thinner lower girdle facets? What are these performance nuances you speak of?

Deciding between the two is proving to be easier said than done.

Also, can anyone tell me what sort of lighting appears to be used in the GOG picture? The GOG picture just looks so much prettier to me, but I am not picking a picture - I am trying to pick a stone. So, I am hoping to ask Excel to send me a picture in similar lighting conditions..

Thank you all in advance! Any additional suggestions/opinions extemely welcomed!!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/9/2010 9:04:47 PM
Author: areed19
''some buyers like the look of thinner lower girdle facets and the performance nuances ''

Could you please explain further?
What are the benefits of thinner lower girdle facets? What are these performance nuances you speak of?

Deciding between the two is proving to be easier said than done.

Also, can anyone tell me what sort of lighting appears to be used in the GOG picture? The GOG picture just looks so much prettier to me, but I am not picking a picture - I am trying to pick a stone. So, I am hoping to ask Excel to send me a picture in similar lighting conditions..

Thank you all in advance! Any additional suggestions/opinions extemely welcomed!!

GOG spends a lot of time on their photography. I don''t think excel can match the quality because they don''t have the set up probably. These types of perks are part of the reason that GOG''s stones may cost a little more.

This video shows a typical H&A round and then a modified H&A round, should give you an idea of the difference: http://www.vimeo.com/8141283

 

[areed19]

Dreamer -

Thank you so much for linking that video! Really helped me see the differences b/t H&A and modified H&A.

Thanks!!

 

[Dreamer_D]

You''re welcome.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/9/2010 9:04:47 PM
Author: areed19
'some buyers like the look of thinner lower girdle facets and the performance nuances '

Could you please explain further?
What are the benefits of thinner lower girdle facets? What are these performance nuances you speak of?

Deciding between the two is proving to be easier said than done.

Also, can anyone tell me what sort of lighting appears to be used in the GOG picture? The GOG picture just looks so much prettier to me, but I am not picking a picture - I am trying to pick a stone. So, I am hoping to ask Excel to send me a picture in similar lighting conditions..

Thank you all in advance! Any additional suggestions/opinions extemely welcomed!!

Thats an excellent video Dreamer linked to show you the differences.

There are various effects that thinner lower girdle facets can have, but for the purposes of this case; very basically the stone in question is a modified h&a stone that is cut with longer lower girdle facets in mind, because some buyers apparently appreciate the visual look of the diamond and the thinner, sharper flashes of light that can be a feature of these types of stones. The arrows themselves also look more ' splintery' being thinner. Once the lower girdle facets get thinner, the hearts start to develop a cleft, this is unacceptable in a ' traditional' h&a stone, hence the term modified is used to describe these diamonds.

This is a good thread which goes into greater detail https://www.pricescope.com/communit...the-star-facets-and-lower-girdles-info.31985/

 

[areed19]

Thanks Lorelei for that link.. very infomative.

So, the excel diamond (#1) scores a 2.6 on the HCA. This breaks the "above 2" rule, but I understand that GIA rounds (or used to round? is this still true?) on their reports... Would this HCA concern you (Lorelei or anyone)?

Barry says that the brillancescope images showed:

White light: Very high 1
Colored light: Very high 3+
Scillitilation: Very High 1

So, to me, that means that it still is a good performer despite the 2.6. But I could be misunderstanding something in this newfound world of sparklies!

Thanks in advance!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/10/2010 2:40:45 PM
Author: areed19
Thanks Lorelei for that link.. very infomative.

So, the excel diamond (#1) scores a 2.6 on the HCA. This breaks the ''above 2'' rule, but I understand that GIA rounds (or used to round? is this still true?) on their reports... Would this HCA concern you (Lorelei or anyone)? The Idealscope image trumps the HCA score and it shows the overall cutting precision of this diamond is good so personally I am not concerned, the diamond is excellently cut but it is a touch deep and is facing up a little small for the weight but its still a great stone by the look of it. The HCA is used for rejection not selection so above 2 really isn''t a rule but a guideline, if you have images which check out then thats more important than the HCA results.

Barry says that the brillancescope images showed:

White light: Very high 1
Colored light: Very high 3+
Scillitilation: Very High 1

So, to me, that means that it still is a good performer despite the 2.6. But I could be misunderstanding something in this newfound world of sparklies!

Thanks in advance!