Best 2.0 ct Round Diamond $12K could buy ?
- Thread starter iameuro
- Start date
- Status
Kelli
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 5,455
Sorry but I have to say that a GIA ex cut grade doesn''t mean much in my book. I had one of those steep deep ones that didn''t score well on the HCA and I had it recut because I noticed it was so leaky. Now that it''s proportions are better, WHAT A DIFFERENCE! I must say with all due respect that I agree with Julie. On the other hand, I do understand that some people may still want this diamond because of its size so I see your point.
As for me, I''ll take the infinity L with strong blue fluorescence any day!
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2005
- Messages
- 13,375
Imdanny
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 6,186
elmo
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,160
If the budget is $12K it makes no sense to be looking at J-SI2 - you can easily afford a J-SI1 nice ideal, for example the following FIC AGSL ideals:
Blue Nile 2.02 J-SI1 AGSL ideal
another Blue Nile 2.02 J-SI1 AGSL ideal
Would make a killer pair of earrings!
JA and others can probably find something similar and closer to $10-11K I believe.
Blue Nile 2.02 J-SI1 AGSL ideal
another Blue Nile 2.02 J-SI1 AGSL ideal
Would make a killer pair of earrings!
JA and others can probably find something similar and closer to $10-11K I believe.
Not really. Its not like there is every possible combination for every possible price available....(Did that read ok????...well you kwIm).
Sometimes you just have to choose, and know that the diamond fits most of your desires and is in your price bracket. The next one you see may be cheaper and with more compromises.....or, better but much more expensive. There wont be alot of choices in the size and budget you have.....which sort of makes it easier to choose, knowing that there arent hundreds out there to sift through!!!!!
Also want to point out that the 2 carat range is very desirable and in high demand. Any improvement from the current specs will really push the price up...even a tiny little improvement could double the price!!!!! So theres not much wriggle room adding another $1000 imo......but of course it cant hurt!!!!!
Steel
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 4,884
LaurenThePartier
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2004
- Messages
- 10,100
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
Hi David,
While a 59-60 table is not large "technically", it is on the "larger" side for the crowd around here. We tend to lean towards the really premo specs (which give the best mix of fire and brilliance), and that would include say, 54-58 (some cut off at 57) tables, with properly correlating C/P angles. We have also listened to the experts explain diamond pics/IS photos (and some of us have looked at tons also), to know which ones are not going to be the best recommendations/best performers.
There are many of us, including Kelli (who bought a steep/deep and had it recut with very positive results) who also have personal experience with stones cut to less exacting standards vs. near Tolkowsky specs, and we''ve seen the difference. That doesn''t mean ALL other stones are poor performers, but many are. And we''d rather not recommend those, and see no real need to with the vast inventory we have to choose from.
The stone julie dismissed, I would also.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
Me three! Good explanation Ellen!!Date: 1/28/2009 9:19:00 AM
Author: Ellen
Hi David,
While a 59-60 table is not large 'technically', it is on the 'larger' side for the crowd around here. We tend to lean towards the really premo specs (which give the best mix of fire and brilliance), and that would include say, 54-58 (some cut off at 57) tables, with properly correlating C/P angles. We have also listened to the experts explain diamond pics/IS photos (and some of us have looked at tons also), to know which ones are not going to be the best recommendations/best performers.
There are many of us, including Kelli (who bought a steep/deep and had it recut with very positive results) who also have personal experience with stones cut to less exacting standards vs. near Tolkowsky specs, and we've seen the difference. That doesn't mean ALL other stones are poor performers, but many are. And we'd rather not recommend those, and see no real need to with the vast inventory we have to choose from.
The stone julie dismissed, I would also.
:)
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,864
I have to agree c/ the others on the 1.95 JA one for the same reasons.
If the JA F SI2 does not work out, the first Whiteflash one that vespergirl posted has real potential. It looks like they would have to call it in, but they do have the report posted (they may have had an inquiry about it previously.) It is also within (original) budget, and the I color you had wanted.
If the JA F SI2 does not work out, the first Whiteflash one that vespergirl posted has real potential. It looks like they would have to call it in, but they do have the report posted (they may have had an inquiry about it previously.) It is also within (original) budget, and the I color you had wanted.
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
Thankies!Date: 1/28/2009 9:23:55 AM
Author: Lorelei
Me three! Good explanation Ellen!!Date: 1/28/2009 9:19:00 AM
Author: Ellen
Hi David,
While a 59-60 table is not large ''technically'', it is on the ''larger'' side for the crowd around here. We tend to lean towards the really premo specs (which give the best mix of fire and brilliance), and that would include say, 54-58 (some cut off at 57) tables, with properly correlating C/P angles. We have also listened to the experts explain diamond pics/IS photos (and some of us have looked at tons also), to know which ones are not going to be the best recommendations/best performers.
There are many of us, including Kelli (who bought a steep/deep and had it recut with very positive results) who also have personal experience with stones cut to less exacting standards vs. near Tolkowsky specs, and we''ve seen the difference. That doesn''t mean ALL other stones are poor performers, but many are. And we''d rather not recommend those, and see no real need to with the vast inventory we have to choose from.
The stone julie dismissed, I would also.
I undertand my budget for a 2.0ct stone isnt ideal, however I believe if I search long enough I can land something really nice.
What is your thought on the following stone...
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-VS2-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-883701.asp
With PriceScope discount it bring it down to $13250 and if I pay via cashwire I get another $150 back... making this stone in a possible range.
I''ve looked at this stone for a while and it seems very nice.. DCA gave it (Total Visual Performance 0.8 - Excellent)
What do you guys think ?
What is your thought on the following stone...
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-VS2-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-883701.asp
With PriceScope discount it bring it down to $13250 and if I pay via cashwire I get another $150 back... making this stone in a possible range.
I''ve looked at this stone for a while and it seems very nice.. DCA gave it (Total Visual Performance 0.8 - Excellent)
What do you guys think ?
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
I would pass, you are into steep/deep territory, and it shows. (light leakage)
These two have been put forth in this thread, and I would go with one of them.
Elmo''s AGS looks fine.
http://www.bluenile.com/round-diamond-2-carat-ideal-cut-j-color-si1-clarity_LD01490227?__fun_frm=i&filter_id=0
And I believe vesper posted this one, but it would have to be called in.
http://www.whiteflash.com/round/Round-cut-diamond-1808963.htm#
stone-cold11
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 14,083
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
Are you asking how much more it will be? If so, call BN and ask them. If it''s too much, you might consider the WF stone, it has potential.Date: 1/28/2009 11:08:25 AM
Author: iameuro
Strange I guess I must of put the measurments I wanted thay diamond to have.
5.4 is def a no go...
One issue with purchasing from Bluenile is they collect tax while shipping to NY.. so what will bumps my price..
elmo
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,160
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
Elmo, our poster has said in his posts he doesn't want to go below I colour which makes things more challenging.
" Thank you all for such input.
Would my option increase dramatically if I increased the budget to around $13K >?
I still would prefer to stay at SI2 as the lowest level and I color.
TY All in advance."
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,859
HI Ellen,Date: 1/28/2009 9:19:00 AM
Author: Ellen
Hi David,
While a 59-60 table is not large ''technically'', it is on the ''larger'' side for the crowd around here. We tend to lean towards the really premo specs (which give the best mix of fire and brilliance), and that would include say, 54-58 (some cut off at 57) tables, with properly correlating C/P angles. We have also listened to the experts explain diamond pics/IS photos (and some of us have looked at tons also), to know which ones are not going to be the best recommendations/best performers.
There are many of us, including Kelli (who bought a steep/deep and had it recut with very positive results) who also have personal experience with stones cut to less exacting standards vs. near Tolkowsky specs, and we''ve seen the difference. That doesn''t mean ALL other stones are poor performers, but many are. And we''d rather not recommend those, and see no real need to with the vast inventory we have to choose from.
The stone julie dismissed, I would also.
I have no doubt that a large percentage of participants here feel as you do- but that does not make them "right" and the other viewpoint "wrong"
Nor does it mean that a diamond with a 60% is not necessarily a "Super Primo" cut in the eyes of many people- both consumers as well as diamond professionals. In no way am I advocating badly cut diamonds, indeed, I place "Cut" at the very top of the list when selecting stones for our store.
All due respect to those who feel the way you do, but many in the industry- and consumers too- don''t necessarily feel the same way about it.
My point is that trying to generalize about cut based on "the crowd around here" would be to ignore the many other viewpoints that people have in the diamond business- and very likely here as well- it is a large group remember..
I say this with the utmost respect, but is it really possible to speak for such a large group? Do we know that the person who started this thread feels that way?
I would never recommend anyone buy diamond to have it re-cut- but it''s great that people have gotten what they wanted in the end.
I am rather curious...what type of weight loss occurred during these re-cuts?
elmo
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,160
Lorelei, I missed that. I color it is. David, for once I tend to agree with you - if he can find a good-looking 60/60 it's a perfectly valid way to get I color since that's what's important, regardless of what me or others here would do (J ideal for me). Edit - I take that back completely - J OEC for me
.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
Its a shame elmo as there are some kicken J's as you rightfully noted he could have!Date: 1/28/2009 1:07:35 PM
Author: elmo
Lorelei, I missed that. I color it is. David, for once I tend to agree with you - if he can find a good-looking 60/60 it's a perfectly valid way to get I color since that's what's important, regardless of what me or others here would do (J ideal for me). Edit - I take that back completely - J OEC for me.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
Yes I would, elmo has come up with some excellent diamonds you could choose, you wouldn't notice much if any visual difference between GIA and AGS graded diamonds of I and J colour and top cut, and as you want size for the budget, I would definitely recommend you look at some J colour. I was looking at a GIA graded J of top cut quality in person recently which was smaller than the size you are looking for, but nevertheless it was very white and a stunning diamond which compared extremely favourably to one of mine of higher colour.
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
There are indeed some who love the look of a 60/60, and that''s perfectly fine. But I would venture to guess they have seen a variety of round cuts, and know that''s what they like/prefer. They do have a different appearance, with an emphasis on brightness, slightly less fire.Date: 1/28/2009 1:00:11 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI Ellen,Date: 1/28/2009 9:19:00 AM
Author: Ellen
Hi David,
While a 59-60 table is not large ''technically'', it is on the ''larger'' side for the crowd around here. We tend to lean towards the really premo specs (which give the best mix of fire and brilliance), and that would include say, 54-58 (some cut off at 57) tables, with properly correlating C/P angles. We have also listened to the experts explain diamond pics/IS photos (and some of us have looked at tons also), to know which ones are not going to be the best recommendations/best performers.
There are many of us, including Kelli (who bought a steep/deep and had it recut with very positive results) who also have personal experience with stones cut to less exacting standards vs. near Tolkowsky specs, and we''ve seen the difference. That doesn''t mean ALL other stones are poor performers, but many are. And we''d rather not recommend those, and see no real need to with the vast inventory we have to choose from.
The stone julie dismissed, I would also.
I have no doubt that a large percentage of participants here feel as you do- but that does not make them ''right'' and the other viewpoint ''wrong''
Nor does it mean that a diamond with a 60% is not necessarily a ''Super Primo'' cut in the eyes of many people- both consumers as well as diamond professionals. In no way am I advocating badly cut diamonds, indeed, I place ''Cut'' at the very top of the list when selecting stones for our store.
All due respect to those who feel the way you do, but many in the industry- and consumers too- don''t necessarily feel the same way about it.
My point is that trying to generalize about cut based on ''the crowd around here'' would be to ignore the many other viewpoints that people have in the diamond business- and very likely here as well- it is a large group remember..
I say this with the utmost respect, but is it really possible to speak for such a large group? Do we know that the person who started this thread feels that way?
I would never recommend anyone buy diamond to have it re-cut- but it''s great that people have gotten what they wanted in the end.
I am rather curious...what type of weight loss occurred during these re-cuts?
When I recommend a diamand to someone who is not familiar with cuts, I like to recommend a diamond I would be proud to own. One that I know will be a bright, fiery stone. I feel a real sense of responsibilty, and I don''t want them to decide after the fact they could have done better, or to know they could have done better. Because regardless of the argument being made, most people can see the difference between a well cut stone, and a not so well cut. But when one is buying online, they don''t have the luxury of viewing lots of different stones, so it''s best, at least for many of us who are offering advice, to suggest what we feel are the "safer" stones. And I think you will find that besides us regular peeps, the real diamond experts/vendors who post on here also find the near Tolk specs most desirable/best performing.
I respect your views, and I am not going to say they''re "wrong", or argue the point. Many of us just have a different view, and as I said before, many of us base that on personal experience. We have personally owned cuts that don''t fall within the sticter parameters, and we know how well they perform, or don''t. And no one can really argue that point either.
No one that I know of intentionally bought a stone to recut. They bought a stone that after really getting to know it, found it lacking, because it wasn''t in the range many of us find the best performing. So they had it recut to near Tolk specs, and ended up with what they found a prettier diamond. Weight loss, and especially diameter, were minimal.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,859
Thank you Ellen!
The terms "Fire" and "Brightness" are probably the best we have in terms of semantics, to describe what we''re talking about- yet they are still lacking in descriptiveness.
My experience has shown me that some people will be able to spot subtle difference, and others won''t.
For example: If we compare a stone of smaller table, and greater depth- one that might be called "Ideal" to a well cut 60/60 there are tools that can demonstrate that there''s more "fire" coming from the smaller table diamond.
Not everyone will be able to see this with their eyes.
ON the other hand, if the two stones we''re comparing are both well cut ( properly proportioned with a nice girdle) the 60/60 is likely to have a greater spread- so there will be a percentage of people who will see a difference in size, but not be able to see a difference in "fire"- OR- they may see the increased "brightness" of a slightly larger tabled diamond and see that as preferable. Many people do. I do.
I''m not going to call myself an expert- but I am a vendor with over 30 years experience- and I was trained to grade diamonds at Harry Winston.
That by no means makes me right- and I appreciate that you did not say my views are wrong- but it''s important to note that a great deal of diamond professionals- people who never compromise on quality of cut- feel as I do about this.
That''s one reason I''m so glad to be here- to at least explore, and represent the alternative viewpoint.
I still feel that the 1.95ct stone may very well be a great one- and don''t feel that it''s possible to eliminate it based on the information we have at hand.
If anyone who did re-cut a steep deep to better proportions can post the specifics- beginning weight and stats, and stats and weight after re-cut, I''d be so grateful- I really am interested to see what the actual losses were.
Thank you again for the stimulating conversation!
The terms "Fire" and "Brightness" are probably the best we have in terms of semantics, to describe what we''re talking about- yet they are still lacking in descriptiveness.
My experience has shown me that some people will be able to spot subtle difference, and others won''t.
For example: If we compare a stone of smaller table, and greater depth- one that might be called "Ideal" to a well cut 60/60 there are tools that can demonstrate that there''s more "fire" coming from the smaller table diamond.
Not everyone will be able to see this with their eyes.
ON the other hand, if the two stones we''re comparing are both well cut ( properly proportioned with a nice girdle) the 60/60 is likely to have a greater spread- so there will be a percentage of people who will see a difference in size, but not be able to see a difference in "fire"- OR- they may see the increased "brightness" of a slightly larger tabled diamond and see that as preferable. Many people do. I do.
I''m not going to call myself an expert- but I am a vendor with over 30 years experience- and I was trained to grade diamonds at Harry Winston.
That by no means makes me right- and I appreciate that you did not say my views are wrong- but it''s important to note that a great deal of diamond professionals- people who never compromise on quality of cut- feel as I do about this.
That''s one reason I''m so glad to be here- to at least explore, and represent the alternative viewpoint.
I still feel that the 1.95ct stone may very well be a great one- and don''t feel that it''s possible to eliminate it based on the information we have at hand.
If anyone who did re-cut a steep deep to better proportions can post the specifics- beginning weight and stats, and stats and weight after re-cut, I''d be so grateful- I really am interested to see what the actual losses were.
Thank you again for the stimulating conversation!
elmo
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,160
shady71
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 157
There is a recut thread https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/the-recut-thread.104464/ that links to the individual recut threads.
My own recut was just finished this past week https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-recut-is-done.105443/ AGS grading was completed yesterday. To summarize, mine went from 2.47 steep/deep to 2.105 and lost less than 1/10mm of diameter. I am thrilled with the results although it will be just a bit longer till I actually have it back.
- Status
300x240.png)