Requesting Assistance in Choice Between 2 JA True Hearts Stones - Med. Blue Fluor. as the Discriminator

[Old_Fossil]

Greetings All,
As a lurker on this forum for several weeks, I want to thank the members of the forum for what I have found to be an essential education. I am now posting in hopes of getting some advice for my potential selection of two stones. I am in the process of an upgrade, as I purchased a ring for Christmas that I ended up not being happy with, so now am in the process of an upgrade. Same setting, just a better cut stone. I will provide as much data as I can.

High level information. Both stones are H color, VVS1, True Hearts from James Allen, with GIA certs. The one I am in the process of the upgrade with is 3.59 carats. The other I am considering is a 3.8 carat stone. Details below:

Stone 1 - in process of purchasing:



Stone 2 - Strongly Considering:


I have spent considerable time looking at these two stones in all possible views on the JA site and am able to see no distinguishable features between the two, and no faults with clarity on either. Both appear to be very crisp from all angles, and I am quite happy with the cut proportions.

The decision challenge I face is with Stone 1 - the one I am currently in the process of purchasing, due to the fact that this stone is listed as having medium blue fluorescence. I understand that an H stone is in the sweet spot for consideration for medium blue fluorescence, and how it might make the stone appear more white in the table up view, especially in the white gold setting. Both the wedding band and engagement ring selected have side stones in the G-H range.

The easy button would of course be to ask my better half her opinion, but I know she wants me to select the stone. If the medium blue is generally undetectable, I would feel more comfortable. I have read the GIA study on fluorescence as well as studies after that one. I also think that if she were at the nail salon or if we were on a cruise ship dance floor, she might not consider any noticeable blue glow as a positive. I recognize the $10k price difference in the 3.8 stone must be for the additional .25 carat weight as well as the lack of fluorescence. The current stone is at the top of my budget for a ring, but I could stretch to include the other one.

By everything that I can see, I think my original selection is actually the better cut stone, even if marginally better. The Ideal Scope images appear (to me) to be slightly better than the other one as well, although, again to me, potentially minor. The decision point on the one I am currently moving forward with (haven't paid yet) is the medium blue fluorescence. I have a good understanding of the theory and concepts of fluorescence, and we don't ever plan on selling this stone. We have been married for 30 years, and this will be her first ring. We both have only had gold bands until now, and I have wanted to get her a nice ring for a long time, and am only now able to do so. The original ring I bought during Christmas was also a JA stone, but not a very good cut and lacked the characteristics of a super ideal cut stone. I have spent the time since then reading everything there is about round cut diamonds, and this site has been a wealth of information as well.

Appreciate thoughts or comments as we get ready to close the deal on one of these stones. It has to be JA at this point since its an upgrade, so other options are out. Apologies if I haven't provided enough information or if the images are less than ideal. Thanks in advance.

Old Fossil

 

[DejaWiz]

Hello and welcome to PriceScope, Old_Fossil!
Are you able to place both diamonds on hold, then post the links so that we can view their videos and offer more detailed feedback?

 

[Old_Fossil]

Hi DejaWiz, thanks for the warm welcome.

Thanks for the suggestion. Here is the link to the stone currently in the process for the upgrade - link is here. The link to the second stone under consideration is here For what it's worth, after much time viewing them both side by side with all viewing options available on JA, I can find no differences even in super zoom. I submit that I am a novice however, so I assume that I don't know what I am missing.

 

[lovedogs]

I honestly don't like the 3.59. The cut precision is off somehow. The 3.80 looks much better to me.

Med blue fluor won't make any difference, so that doesn't factor into my suggestion

 

[DejaWiz]

Hi DejaWiz, thanks for the warm welcome.

Thanks for the suggestion. Here is the link to the stone currently in the process for the upgrade - link is here. The link to the second stone under consideration is here For what it's worth, after much time viewing them both side by side with all viewing options available on JA, I can find no differences even in super zoom. I submit that I am a novice however, so I assume that I don't know what I am missing.

Both have pretty nice cut precision!
The clarity is quite extreme...any VS1-VVS2 would appear just as clean to the eyes as any VVS1-IF/FL. If you were to relax the clarity a bit, then it may very well open up many more options (including better color grades) to pick from, if that is something you would like to entertain, assuming that you're looking in the $50-80k realm based on other diamonds of H VVS1 in the 3.5-4.0 range at JA.

 

[Old_Fossil]

I honestly don't like the 3.59. The cut precision is off somehow. The 3.80 looks much better to me.

Med blue fluor won't make any difference, so that doesn't factor into my suggestion

Thanks lovedogs. Could you share which view led you to this observation? Was it the normal spinning views or perhaps the Ideal Scope images? I know the cut proportions on their own are very tight, but perhaps this combination together are not quite super ideal (if there is such a thing). As I examined all the proportion specs of BG and WF H&A stones, these I have selected are in the same space, but not necessarily with the same relationships (e.g. crown angle to pavilion angle relationships). I note that the most precise ASET and Ideal Scope images from BG and WF come from stones whose proportions are within a few tenths of a degree or percentage from each other. I find only a few stones on JA with this level of cut precision, regardless of the other Cs, and I thought these were in that same level. Thank you for responding, and I look forward to your thoughts on how good cut numbers might still result in less than ideal stones.

 

[Old_Fossil]

Both have pretty nice cut precision!
The clarity is quite extreme...any VS1-VVS2 would appear just as clean to the eyes as any VVS1-IF/FL. If you were to relax the clarity a bit, then it may very well open up many more options (including better color grades) to pick from, if that is something you would like to entertain, assuming that you're looking in the $50-80k realm based on other diamonds of H VVS1 in the 3.5-4.0 range at JA.

Thanks DejaWiz. I agree that the clarity is higher than necessary for normal human eye viewing under normal conditions. My driving factor is cut, and when I apply the below search criterion to JA, I only get a few in return. I am only concerned with G-H as my sidestones are in that range. I understand that a well cut I would probably be Ok as well in that regard. Here is what I have been using as threshold criteria for searching both on this site and JA:

Table 54-57%
Depth % 61.0% to 62.5%
Crown Angle 34.0° to 35.0°
Pavilion Angle 40.6° to 41.0°
Lower Girdles 75% to 80%
Star Length 50% to 55%
Girdle Thickness T – M – ST (2 - 3.5%)
Pavilion Depth: 42.2-43.8%
Crown Height 14%-16%
Culet None


I believe I have a better chance of finding more stones with these proportions with BG, WF and other sites, but as I mentioned, I am in an upgrade process with JA, and my wife LOVES her rings. So it is down to a single JA stone to replace the original.

Perhaps these proportions are too restrictive, but the most crisp H&A stones I have seen from BG, WF, and others all seem to fall within this range. It certainly brings the number of available stones down considerably - but I insist on the best cut possible (but I don't want to make it impossible). Actually looking for the best ~3.0ish carat stone I can find.

I will offer that I have considered these stones as well, although I am giving up over .5 carats to do so, and don't want to if their is a negligible difference (recognizing negligible is subjective). The original stone was 3.01, so I am good with 3.0 - 3.75 carat range.

These alternatives are an E SI1 3.16 True Hearts stone is here and a F VS1 3.06 is here

Thank you.

 

[0515vision]

I'm a relative newbie, so take what I write with a grain of salt. But do you see how the 3.59 has a darker area under the table on the en face view from about 2:30-4:30? On the 3.80, the entire area under the table is nice and uniformly bright.

I'm super new at reviewing scope images, but I wonder if the darker area under the table corresponds to the left lower quadrant.

The 3.06 has pavilion twist which is indicated by the dark triangles at the base of the arrows, easily seen at 12-3 o'clock on the en face view. The 3.16 also has some twist.

I have a feeling the sleuths here will be able to find you some great choices.

Are you the person who put the 3.80 on hold or purchased it? That's a pretty stone.

 

[Old_Fossil]

I'm a relative newbie, so take what I write with a grain of salt. But do you see how the 3.59 has a darker area under the table on the en face view from about 2:30-4:30? On the 3.80, the entire area under the table is nice and uniformly bright.

I'm super new at reviewing scope images, but I wonder if the darker area under the table corresponds to the left lower quadrant.

The 3.06 has pavilion twist which is indicated by the dark triangles at the base of the arrows, easily seen at 12-3 o'clock on the en face view. The 3.16 also has some twist.

I have a feeling the sleuths here will be able to find you some great choices.

Are you the person who put the 3.80 on hold or purchased it? That's a pretty stone.

Sincere thanks 0515vision - those are great observations. Indeed, I placed that 3.80 on hold, as I like the way it looks as well. To my novice eyes, the Ideal Scope for that stone seems to be in line with H&A standards. Perhaps an ASET would provide more insights, but JA said they didn't have those available unless they were AGS. I appreciate you taking the time to provide your inputs. This is, for me anyway, a significant investment, which she deserves, so I want to get it right. Already on one return, don't need any more.

 

[lovedogs]

Here's my issue w the smaller stone.




The top 3 arrows look "crowded" to me and there is some darkness between the arrows. When you compare it to the 3.80 I feel like the difference is noticible.

 

[Old_Fossil]

Here's my issue w the smaller stone.




The top 3 arrows look "crowded" to me and there is some darkness between the arrows. When you compare it to the 3.80 I feel like the difference is noticible.

I can see what you mean, and I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand. Now that I have seen it, I can't un-see it. Great eye lovedogs, this is very helpful. You are absolutely correct in that it is noticeable, and when I go back and look at the superzoom view, it is quite noticeable. Thanks for pointing this out and bringing it to my attention. My situation isn't ideal in that I need to find a replacement stone solely from JA, and I don't have a whole lot of time. We are narrowing it down now for sure in the right direction.

 

[lovedogs]

I can see what you mean, and I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand. Now that I have seen it, I can't un-see it. Great eye lovedogs, this is very helpful. You are absolutely correct in that it is noticeable, and when I go back and look at the superzoom view, it is quite noticeable. Thanks for pointing this out and bringing it to my attention. My situation isn't ideal in that I need to find a replacement stone solely from JA, and I don't have a whole lot of time. We are narrowing it down now for sure in the right direction.

I think the 3.8 is a great choice

 

[Old_Fossil]

Thank you lovedogs. I appreciate you taking the time to help a stranger as he prepares to invest a significant sum into something so small. I value your expertise, and am better informed with your and other PS member inputs, both subjective and objective. I agree with you on the second stone. Leaning that way strongly now. Happy to hear others thoughts on this.

 

[Old_Fossil]

Will be reaching out to JA this week to make the decision on which stone to move forward with, and now the 3.8 stone is my preferred candidate. Any other thoughts on this stone are appreciated as I prepare to commit to it. Thanks all in advance.

 

[0515vision]

Here's my issue w the smaller stone.




The top 3 arrows look "crowded" to me and there is some darkness between the arrows. When you compare it to the 3.80 I feel like the difference is noticible.

@lovedogs Thanks for that image!

Anyone have an idea of what causes that or what to call that? I feel like I can recognize pavilion twist, but that's a new one. Perhaps @Rockdiamond or @Karl_K or @Garry H (Cut Nut) or others know? TIA!

 

[Karl_K]

@lovedogs Thanks for that image!

Anyone have an idea of what causes that or what to call that? I feel like I can recognize pavilion twist, but that's a new one. Perhaps @Rockdiamond or @Karl_K or @Garry H (Cut Nut) or others know? TIA!

link to stones page or post IS and heart image please.
When something is weird in one image check the others for clues if more images are available.

 

[0515vision]

@Karl_K, here's the image. @lovedogs circled questionable areas in yellow. Thanks!

 

[Old_Fossil]

link to stones page or post IS and heart image please.
When something is weird in one image check the others for clues if more images are available.

@Karl_K Here are the links to the two stones in question. The first is the one with some questionable features as highlighted by @lovedogs and @0515vision and the link to that 3.59 stone is here . I had some initial concerns about the med. blue fluor in that stone, but others have weighed in with other comments not related to fluor.

The stone I am currently considering is a 3.8 stone and the link to that one is here

Sincere thanks for thoughts on either stone - especially the 3.8 as that is the one I am considering purchasing this week as part of an upgrade/exchange.

 

[headlight]

@Karl_K @lovedogs @DejaWiz Doesn’t it say somewhere here on PS that a 35 with 40.8 only works with lowers of 80???

 

[DejaWiz]

@Karl_K @lovedogs @DejaWiz Doesn’t it say somewhere here on PS that a 35 with 40.8 only works with lowers of 80???

In the member recommended proportions section of the diamond proportions page:

Diamond Proportions

The physics of light-behavior within a diamond are reliably consistent, which means proportions measurements can be useful.

www.pricescope.com

Those don't look like 75% actuals, though...probably most are around 77% then GIA averaged and rounded to print 75% on the report.

 

[Old_Fossil]

In the member recommended proportions section of the diamond proportions page:

Diamond Proportions

The physics of light-behavior within a diamond are reliably consistent, which means proportions measurements can be useful.

www.pricescope.com

Those don't look like 75% actuals, though...probably most are around 77% then GIA averaged and rounded to print 75% on the report. I believe the lower girdles should be in the 77-78% range for a H&A stone

Thanks to @headlight and @DejaWiz for bringing in the discussion point of these proportion relationships. Also interesting to note that GIA rounds to the nearest 5% so we have to look to try and determine the true proportion. As I look at the Ideal Scope image with the hearts distance from their respective V's, I estimate we are in the range @DejaWiz cites above with ~77-78% lowers. I do note the one rogue heart at the 2 oclock on the image, so not sure what people feel about that. The rest of the image seems fine to my novice eyes. Thanks for sharing that link to proportions page.

 

[MissGotRocks]

@Karl_K @lovedogs @DejaWiz Doesn’t it say somewhere here on PS that a 35 with 40.8 only works with lowers of 80???

Not that I am aware of

 

[DejaWiz]

Not that I am aware of

 

[Karl_K]

80% is gia numbers, 77%+ actual is often fine with that combo.
IS/ASET is the best way to tell if there is an issue when you get to the edges.

 

[Karl_K]

3.59 has some pavilion wonk, probably not eye visible.
3.8 could use slightly longer lowers but the very slight amount of leakage is not a huge issue.
Its a well cut stone.

 

[Old_Fossil]

What an interesting phenomenon @DejaWiz @Karl_K and @headlight. Of all the possible PAs and CAs within the preferred ranges, only when we see a PA of 40.8 and CA of 35 do we specifically address the lower halves proportions. The asterisk on this requirement points to the caveat that "proof trumps numbers". As recommended, I have gone to a blown up view of the Ideal Scope images. My untrained eye sees that essentially the 8 hearts are symmetrical and the V's are the same size, no clefs between the hearts, there are symmetrical gaps between hearts and V's, and the heart tops are not flattened off? The one heart at the two o'clock appears to have a slight yaw, and is slightly further away from it's V. Perhaps this is the result of the lowers being reported as 75% which is below the recommended 80 with PA 40.8/CA 35? or perhaps some other cutting error? The arrows image perhaps shows some light leakage under the table, as it is a bit light around center? Although this may cross the threshold to becoming a "near H&A" stone, interested to hear thoughts on the risks these proportional relationships and interpretations of the Ideal Scope images. Thanks to all.

 

[MissGotRocks]

I honestly do not recall seeing this particular chart. Indeed interesting with rounding - thanks!

 

[Karl_K]

The pavilion consists of 2 different sets of facets.
8 mains and 16 lower girdle also called lower halves(call them lowers for ease of communication).
The mains(arrows) are not going to leak in any realistic combo without major wonk.
The angle of the lowers varies with the pavilion angle and the lgf%.
Longer lgf% for any given pavilion angle means the lowers are at a shallower angle.
Shorter lgf% can make them steeper to the point they can leak.

Therefor the lowers angle is what determines if there is leakage under the table for that particular combination of Table/CA/PA but that is not reported directly on the reports.

 

[Old_Fossil]

@0515vision @lovedogs @Karl_K @MissGotRocks @headlight I would appreciate your thoughts on potential for perceptible color for this same 3.8 stone under review above (link is here ) At 3.8 carats, in this setting here , next to its matching band here, given the quality cut of this stone, what the potential is for perceptible color. I assume that no matter what, a side view may produce slight color with an H, and not sure how much at this carat size. Those that have weighed in here agree this is a well cut stone, so my next area of consideration is color, so looking for comments on how noticeable color may or may not be given the cut and setting - recognizing the subjectivity. My assumption is that there may be different perceptions between this stone for example in a high solitaire setting vs the current setting and band with sidestones (potential mediators of color?). Thanks in advance as I continue to navigate uncharted territory for me.

 

[Karl_K]

Color is personal.
Some will notice a tint, some wont.
Some of those that notice it will be bugged by it but many not.
Given the size it will be more apparent.
The only way to know for 100% sure is to view it in as many light conditions as possible in person.