Opinions on this - good value or can I do better?

[stone-cold11]

Compare IS if available. Else, my preference will be the J stone just because I like an ideal symm stone.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/1/2008 6:34:45 PM
Author: JulieN
A DQR does not give a cut grade. AGS issues different levels of reports.

Ditto. The diamond looks great!

"So which is preferable, with comparable HCA scores - a Ex/Ex in symm and polish, but H... OR Ideal in Symm/polish, but J. Assuming all other things equal, which they pretty much are, including price. "

As to the quote above, it depends on personal taste, you may never see the difference in reality between ex ex id id, but I would proceed using Idealscope for each and or colour preference.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/1/2008 6:50:58 PM
Author: vadar

So which is preferable, with comparable HCA scores - a Ex/Ex in symm and polish, but H... OR Ideal in Symm/polish, but J. Assuming all other things equal, which they pretty much are, including price.

I would get the J, but not because of the sym and pol. I don't think you could tell the difference from the other. But I like all the numbers on the J better. (I assume it's a J, I didn't actually see where you said that)

 

[vadar]

Date: 12/2/2008 7:22:10 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 12/1/2008 6:50:58 PM
Author: vadar

So which is preferable, with comparable HCA scores - a Ex/Ex in symm and polish, but H... OR Ideal in Symm/polish, but J. Assuming all other things equal, which they pretty much are, including price.

I would get the J, but not because of the sym and pol. I don''t think you could tell the difference from the other. But I like all the numbers on the J better. (I assume it''s a J, I didn''t actually see where you said that)

Yes, it''s a J. I am trying to get the Idealscope of the H for comparison. But here is the J''s idealscope. What exactly makes the numbers look better? They both scored about the same on the HCA. I still need to see the inclusions on the H, but all things being equal, isn''t 2 notches up in color worth a slight tradeoff in cut quality?

How about this question - if the difference in both cut and color turns out to be completely undetectable, so you have two stones that look identical aside from the info on the cert... which is preferable, a ex/ex H or and id/id J?

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 12/1/2008 6:50:58 PM
Author: vadar
I see... so even this scores better in the HCA, it''s not an AGS0.

I actually found a link on here that explains it, pretty much the exact same situation (https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-dqd-vs-dqr-breakdown-literally-figuratively.18020/).

So which is preferable, with comparable HCA scores - a Ex/Ex in symm and polish, but H... OR Ideal in Symm/polish, but J. Assuming all other things equal, which they pretty much are, including price.

It will not be an AGS0 mainly because AGS ding stones that has less than ideal symm/polish, not because of its predicted optical performance.

That said, I agree with ellen than the J is cut better, smaller depth = better spread, smaller table, higher crown angle = better fire.

From the IS, the J stone is going to be very beautiful.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/2/2008 9:00:53 AM
Author: vadar

Date: 12/2/2008 7:22:10 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 12/1/2008 6:50:58 PM
Author: vadar

So which is preferable, with comparable HCA scores - a Ex/Ex in symm and polish, but H... OR Ideal in Symm/polish, but J. Assuming all other things equal, which they pretty much are, including price.

I would get the J, but not because of the sym and pol. I don''t think you could tell the difference from the other. But I like all the numbers on the J better. (I assume it''s a J, I didn''t actually see where you said that)

Yes, it''s a J. I am trying to get the Idealscope of the H for comparison. But here is the J''s idealscope. What exactly makes the numbers look better? They both scored about the same on the HCA. I still need to see the inclusions on the H, but all things being equal, isn''t 2 notches up in color worth a slight tradeoff in cut quality?

How about this question - if the difference in both cut and color turns out to be completely undetectable, so you have two stones that look identical aside from the info on the cert... which is preferable, a ex/ex H or and id/id J?

The IS for the J looks great! Both are well cut diamonds, I doubt the crown angle would really contribute to any extra fire on the J but the numbers overall are in a '' safe'' range that should enable this diamond to be a stunning performer. When you get the IS for the H please post it, as to which is the best diamond it depends on what you prefer, the slightly tighter cut of the J or the still well cut but higher colour H. But if you post the IS that would help.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/2/2008 9:00:53 AM
Author: vadar

Date: 12/2/2008 7:22:10 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 12/1/2008 6:50:58 PM
Author: vadar

So which is preferable, with comparable HCA scores - a Ex/Ex in symm and polish, but H... OR Ideal in Symm/polish, but J. Assuming all other things equal, which they pretty much are, including price.

I would get the J, but not because of the sym and pol. I don''t think you could tell the difference from the other. But I like all the numbers on the J better. (I assume it''s a J, I didn''t actually see where you said that)

Yes, it''s a J. I am trying to get the Idealscope of the H for comparison. But here is the J''s idealscope. What exactly makes the numbers look better? They both scored about the same on the HCA. I still need to see the inclusions on the H, but all things being equal, isn''t 2 notches up in color worth a slight tradeoff in cut quality?

How about this question - if the difference in both cut and color turns out to be completely undetectable, so you have two stones that look identical aside from the info on the cert... which is preferable, a ex/ex H or and id/id J?

Cold Stone answered this part.

What I would suggest at this point, is to have Brian (head honcho) compare them. On paper, I''d go for the J, but in real life, it might not make a difference. If they truly look the same, or just about, I''d go for the H.

 

[vadar]

So... I guess I should have done all the research first, bc I wasn''t aware of spread. Oh well I am learning on the fly. Is there a huge difference in Exellent vs VG spread in the HCA? Because the J is Excellent while the H is just Very Good. Will that make the J look significantly larger? Is there a thread anywhere with a visual comparison of different spreads?

Also, I just realized that the J (recommended by the WF sales guy) is the same stone Ellen recommended back on pg 1!

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 12/1/2008 6:50:58 PM
Author: vadar
I see... so even this scores better in the HCA, it''s not an AGS0.

I actually found a link on here that explains it, pretty much the exact same situation (https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-dqd-vs-dqr-breakdown-literally-figuratively.18020/).

So which is preferable, with comparable HCA scores - a Ex/Ex in symm and polish, but H... OR Ideal in Symm/polish, but J. Assuming all other things equal, which they pretty much are, including price.

Vadar, it''s important to also know that a lower HCA score isn''t "better".

HCA works more like a "pass/fail" system. Anything below a 2 is akin to a pass, and anything above a 2 isn''t as likely to be a pass.

1.6 isn''t better than 1.8, nor is it worse.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 12/2/2008 4:15:47 PM
Author: vadar
So... I guess I should have done all the research first, bc I wasn''t aware of spread. Oh well I am learning on the fly. Is there a huge difference in Exellent vs VG spread in the HCA? Because the J is Excellent while the H is just Very Good. Will that make the J look significantly larger? Is there a thread anywhere with a visual comparison of different spreads?

Also, I just realized that the J (recommended by the WF sales guy) is the same stone Ellen recommended back on pg 1!

For Ex spread, Garry set it at about 60.3% depth, quite difficult to get that score in larger stones. What we are looking at is for less weight to be hidden in the depth, so less depth but still having a good combination between crown and pavilion angles is what we are looking for.

There is a thread somewhere but more for large difference in carat weight. In this comparison, there is only a difference of about 0.05mm in diameter, so it is negligible probably un-noticeable, but we like splitting hairs here and since you want us to choose...

 

[Ellen]

Ditto Alj and Sc on the HCA. And I''ll throw in that I rarely see Ex spread on a stone unless it''s numbers are leaning towards the shallower end (not just depth many times). You don''t see the best of the best cut get Ex spread usually, but that''s not to say it won''t have a great spread then. My stone is extremely well cut, and faces up like it should for its ct. weight, but only gets VG in spread.

And Sc, sorry about your name up there, the workings of an aging mind.

 

[vadar]

We have a new challenger!

Still haven't gotten the IS on the others, but I found this -

Report Type: Diamond Quality™ Document
Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 8.26 - 8.28 x 4.95 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Color Grade: AGS 2.5 (I)
Clarity Grade: AGS 5 (SI1)
Carat Weight 2.018
Fluorescence: Negligible
Comments: Additional clouds and surface graining are not shown.

Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Table: 56.0%
Crown Angle: 33.8
Crown Height: 14.7%
Girdle: Faceted, 0.6% to 3.4%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion Depth: 43.1%
Star Length: 54%
Lower Girdle Length: 78%
Total Depth: 59.9%
Culet: Pointed

The price is about 2 grand lower than the other ones I was looking at, and it is AGS0, scores 0.7 on the HCA. I can't tell from the bad photocopy of the cert, but there don't seem to be major inclusions, I need to verify the eye-cleanliness as well.

I am worried about the comments - additional clouds and surface graining not shown... I know from my pricescope research

that the clouds should be a non-issue on SI1, but what about the surface graining? Issue/nonissue/need to see images?

THANKS! You all have been unbelievably helpful so far, I would be totally lost and frustrated without this forum!

 

[vadar]

One other item for concern - the cert is AGS0, the HCA is excellent all around, but the "X" falls outside the white AGS Ideal candidate box... Is this an issue? *edit: the x didn't show up when I saved the HCA image, but if you plug in the specs you'll see what I mean*

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/4/2008 2:58:09 PM
Author: vadar


We have a new challenger!

Still haven't gotten the IS on the others, but I found this -

Report Type: Diamond Quality™ Document
Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 8.26 - 8.28 x 4.95 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Color Grade: AGS 2.5 (I)
Clarity Grade: AGS 5 (SI1)
Carat Weight 2.018
Fluorescence: Negligible
Comments: Additional clouds and surface graining are not shown.

Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Table: 56.0%
Crown Angle: 33.8
Crown Height: 14.7%
Girdle: Faceted, 0.6% to 3.4%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion Depth: 43.1%
Star Length: 54%
Lower Girdle Length: 78%
Total Depth: 59.9%
Culet: Pointed

The price is about 2 grand lower than the other ones I was looking at, and it is AGS0, scores 0.7 on the HCA. I can't tell from the bad photocopy of the cert, but there don't seem to be major inclusions, I need to verify the eye-cleanliness as well.

I am worried about the comments - additional clouds and surface graining not shown... I know from my pricescope research

that the clouds should be a non-issue on SI1, but what about the surface graining? Issue/nonissue/need to see images?

THANKS! You all have been unbelievably helpful so far, I would be totally lost and frustrated without this forum!

Shouldn't be anything to worry about - ' not shown' as in additional clouds and surface graining in the comments section of a grading report mean that these are too insignificant to plot and are only mentioned for the sake of completeness.

 

[stone-cold11]

You should not worry about AGS0 stone not falling in the Ideal range for AGS on the HCA, as HCA only takes into the account of the major input parameters while AGS Performance Based Grading actually simulates the light performance of the actual stone dimensions so it is much more superior than HCA.

As long as the report didn''t say the inclusion contributes to the grading of the clarity, they should be an non-issue.

Looks like a good deal, just make sure it is eye-clean.

 

[vadar]

Confirmed eye-clean, here''s an image. Thoughts?

 

[stone-cold11]

Looks good then.

How''s the return policy like?

If they allow an inspection period and if you dun like it simply return it for a refund, I would say go for it. Eyeballed it yourself to see if you really like it and that it is eye-clean to your preference.

 

[vadar]

looks kinda dirty to me...

But I guess that''s bc it''s 40x magnification.

 

[stone-cold11]

That is why you will have to see it yourself. Else, to get a relatively clean round pic in that kind of lighting and magnification you will just have to got to at least a VS2 level.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/4/2008 6:03:16 PM
Author: vadar
looks kinda dirty to me...

But I guess that''s bc it''s 40x magnification.

The quality of pics with that particular vendor, if it''s the one I am pretty certain it is, is not of the highest quality. But it should be a pretty diamond.

Also, the upgrade policy that was raised is a good point. Again, if it''s from where I think it is, their policy is rather rigid, not the most consumer friendly. Check it out.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/4/2008 3:05:35 PM
Author: vadar
One other item for concern - the cert is AGS0, the HCA is excellent all around, but the ''X'' falls outside the white AGS Ideal candidate box... Is this an issue? *edit: the x didn''t show up when I saved the HCA image, but if you plug in the specs you''ll see what I mean*

No reason for concern, the AGS grading takes precedence over the HCA. The diamond looks good, check it is eyeclean to your standards.

 

[vadar]

Decision time.

Here is the IS. PLEASE give me any input you have, good or bad:

 

[neatfreak]

I've seen better images and I've seen a LOT worse. It's just about balancing budget vs. everything else for you at this point. It certainly isn't bad by any means. And I'm not sure you'd notice the difference between this and something with a more "perfect" IS image...who knows on that really. This is the considerably cheaper one right? And it's eyeclean?

 

[vadar]

More info

 

[vadar]

It''s about 3k cheaper than the J. It also looks about the same size/bigger than the J, due to the higher spread, despite the smaller carat size. And it''s eyeclean. So my only concern is that it may not sparkle like I expected an AGS0 to sparkle.

Is that idealscope too pink?

Here''s the idealscope on the J:

 

[vadar]

And here's a comparison of the I vs the J.

I is 2.018c, J is 2.114, both are AGS0

I just want to be sure this thing sparkles like it should...

Should also mention since it's been brought up, return/upgrade policy is a non-issue, both would be bought through WF.

 

[vadar]

Date: 12/8/2008 5:30:22 PM
Author: neatfreak
I''ve seen better images and I''ve seen a LOT worse. It''s just about balancing budget vs. everything else for you at this point. It certainly isn''t bad by any means. And I''m not sure you''d notice the difference between this and something with a more ''perfect'' IS image...who knows on that really. This is the considerably cheaper one right? And it''s eyeclean?

Thanks for the response.

Can the other experts on this forum PLEASE chime in with your opinions? What does the IS not being deep, dark red mean in terms of this diamond''s performance? Should I go for it or reject it and keep looking? Need to decide asap.

thanks!

 

[Ellen]

Just going on the photo comparisons, I would pick the J. It looks a little more crisp, and livlier. However, these are pics. As I suggested before, I would have Brian compare them, and pick the best one for you.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/9/2008 8:32:46 AM
Author: vadar

Date: 12/8/2008 5:30:22 PM
Author: neatfreak
I've seen better images and I've seen a LOT worse. It's just about balancing budget vs. everything else for you at this point. It certainly isn't bad by any means. And I'm not sure you'd notice the difference between this and something with a more 'perfect' IS image...who knows on that really. This is the considerably cheaper one right? And it's eyeclean?

Thanks for the response.

Can the other experts on this forum PLEASE chime in with your opinions? What does the IS not being deep, dark red mean in terms of this diamond's performance? Should I go for it or reject it and keep looking? Need to decide asap.

thanks!

If you mean the white areas on the ACA IS, that is from ' controlled leakage' which can add to desirable visual properties of the diamond. I agree with Ellen, ask for Brian to have a look at each diamond to help you choose.

 

[neatfreak]

The J would be my choice too if the money isn''t a huge deal. If it is, the I will certainly still be gorgeous.