Jump to content

Need help choosing an AGS 0 princess cut/reading ASETs


JeannieGrey
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

I've been doing a lot of research and have narrowed my search down to 4 diamonds. My main priority is light performance and second is carat size.

I'm not sure if I'm reading the ASET images correctly. Is it important that there be as much contrast as light in the diamond or does there only need to be some contrast?

Please let me know what you all think between the below. Thank you so much!!

Is there too much contrast here and not enough light?
https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/...1.390-i-si1-princess-diamond-ags-104086280003

https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/...1.314-i-vs2-princess-diamond-ags-104086010001

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-3599778.htm

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-3644842.htm

Jeannie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the 4 presents what I (personally) would call as "too much contrast" and all 4 are bright - for princess cuts. If brightness is your hot button, I would not recommend a princess cut...

Importance of contrast: for me it's vital. A small flat mirror is 100% brightness, 0 contrast - and not particularly interesting to see. Other people may well see it differently (including, it seems, a majority of princess cut buyers, since this is what the majority of princess cuts tend to look like nowadays: uniformly bright, but without an interesting pattern of dark and bright areas that changes as the stone moves).

Of the 4, I would personally go with the first one (1.390). It faces up large(ish - again, not a princess cut strength), and it has a nice distribution of brightness and contrast. Runner up is the 1.280, not least because of the price - it's probably going to be less fiery than either of the BGD stones, though. The 1.312 has a few windows/dark areas which I don't particularly like (in this exalted company; it's still better cut than 99% of the princess cuts you'll find). The 1.510 is also a lovely stone, but it is significantly more expensive because it goes above the 1.50 threshold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@davidelevi really appreciate your thoughtful and insightful response. I had many of the same concerns with the individual diamonds, and your response gave me more confidence in my thoughts. 

I was leaning toward the 1.39 because of cost and light performance.  However, I'm wondering if the Whiteflash 1.5 is worth the $1k more. Yes, it's bigger in size, but what do you think about the light peformance/ASETs between the 2? I think if it was also a better light performer, it would justify the higher price tag to me.

I don't understand why in general the Brian Gavin diamonds I have been looking at have so much more symmetrical contrast than the Whiteflash diamonds.  Whiteflash's ASET has more red which makes me think it would be better but it lacks much more symmetrical contrast, and I dont know how important that is. How do you compare the ASETs?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't just care taken with the photographs - it's also that the proportions are different; look at crown (and pavilion) angles and heights, for example. Brian's stones have a significantly higher and steeper crown, with a less steep pavilion. While both companies cut superb stones, they will look different; personally I prefer Brian's style, but there is nothing wrong with Whiteflash's.

Which gets us to your question:

13 hours ago, JeannieGrey said:

I was leaning toward the 1.39 because of cost and light performance.  However, I'm wondering if the Whiteflash 1.5 is worth the $1k more. Yes, it's bigger in size, but what do you think about the light peformance/ASETs between the 2? I think if it was also a better light performer, it would justify the higher price tag to me. 

The "problem" is that the expression "light performance" (which incidentally I hate) is vague. What does "light performance" mean when at the very least there are 4 parameters that need to be traded off against each other? We all agree that the 1.51 is bigger than the 1.319, but if one stone is more fiery and the other one is more uniformly bright, which one has the best "light performance"? It clearly comes down to a personal choice.

You seem to read an ASET just fine; what you may need to train yourself into is to accept that an ASET is adding (or revealing) information about how a stone reflects light (and in a fairly static way, at that); it's not issuing a single, immutable and complete verdict on whether YOU like that stone.

Edited by davidelevi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you're saying and agree that at the end it does come down to personal preference. I think I am still trying to figure out what I ultimately want and what is more important to me.

I'm down to 2 choices. The company was nice enough to provide me a video of the diamonds I was interested in in different lighting. The first one is the 1.5 from above. 
 
The second one is also about a 1.5 ct I color, but it is an SI1 which I don't mind if it's eye clean. It looked comparable in the videos, is supposedly a higher I color, has a larger face up size, and is $1k cheaper. 
 
 
This second diamond is a surprise to me. It's an ACA but doesn't fit the description of a normal ideal diamond: smaller crown, larger table, table > depth. To me, the idealscope seems to have a fair amount of light leakage too. But in the videos it looked comparable, and I like the idea of cheaper, bigger, and whiter.
 
video here:
 
Would love to hear others thoughts! Thank you!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...