Jump to content

Advice Appreciated: 0.61Pt F Vs2 (3X) Vs. 0.70Pt G Vs1 (3X)


denniskiasu
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all, i'd like to get your thoughts on these 2 stones. planning as an engagement / proposal ring to my girlfriend of 6.5 years. appreciate your advice on which is a better stone, e.g.:-

1. proportions (depth%, table%, crown angle, pavilion angle, etc.)

2. florescence (faint vs. none)

3. HCA score.

 

thanks.

 

#1 0.61 F VS2 triple excellent, HCA 1.9 ~USD2.5K

Light Return Excellent

Fire Very Good

Scintillation Very Good

Spread Very Good

Total Visual Performance 1.9 - Excellent

within TIC range

 

Round Brilliant

Measurements: 5.41 - 5.44 x 3.39 mm

Carat Weight: 0.61 carat

Color Grade: F

Clarity Grade: VS2

Cut Grade: Excellent

Proportions:

Depth: 62.5%

Table: 55%

Crown Angle: 34.5°

Crown Height: 15.5%

Pavilion Angle: 41.0°

Pavilion Depth: 43.5%

Star Length: 50%

Lower Half: 80%

Girdle: Medium, Faceted (3.5%)

Culet: None

Finish:

Polish: Excellent

Symmetry: Excellent

Fluorescence: None

Clarity Characteristics: Crystal

 

 

#2 0.70 G VS1 triple excellent HCA 1.4 ~USD3.4K

Light Return Excellent

Fire Excellent

Scintillation Very Good

Spread Excellent

Total Visual Performance 1.4 - Excellent

within TIC range

 

Round Brilliant

Measurements: 5.78 - 5.81 x 3.47 mm

Carat Weight: 0.70 carat

Color Grade: G

Clarity Grade: VS1

Cut Grade: Excellent

Proportions:

Depth: 59.9%

Table: 59%

Crown Angle: 33.5°

Crown Height: 13.5%

Pavilion Angle: 41.0°

Pavilion Depth: 43.0%

Star Length: 50%

Lower Half: 80%

Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted (3.0%)

Culet: None

Finish:

Polish: Excellent

Symmetry: Excellent

Fluorescence: Faint

Clarity Characteristics: Crystal, Feather

 

 

 

thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. They both seem fine on paper. Is there any way you can see them together and figure out which one you prefer? There is little to choose between them cut-wise other than personal preferences (which would sway me towards the 0.61 - but those are my personal preferences for a smaller table and a taller crown).

 

2. Not relevant. You'd have a hard time seeing faint fluoro under an UV lamp in an otherwise dark room, never mind in real life.

 

3. Not relevant. It's not a choice tool; it's a rejection tool (and one with pretty big limitations, BTW)

 

Colour-wise, you'll have a hard time telling one from the other too, and size-wise the 0.70 will be visibly larger - just.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi. davidelevi. thx for your advice.

 

silly question: for the 0.70 pt, the table is 59% and the depth is 59.9% ; which is pretty close to 60:60. is there any merit to this 60:60?

 

personally, i too am concern with the 59% table; i would imagine it would not meet an AGS Ideal 0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing to be concerned about a 59% table per se. FWIW, it would probably end up being an AGS0, but if this is important to you, why not get an AGS-graded stone or choose a dealer that has the software and equipment to grade the stone using AGS standards?

 

As to 60/60, in the '80s and early '90s it was a prized combination, and it keeps being a good sign for many that like quite spready makes. However, it is clear that looking at table/depth by themselves produces unreliable results, and there are good 60/60 (like the one you have above) and not-so-good ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first 6 stats are not part of standard diamond grading methodology. It's ok if you want to buy from a dealer who wants to use unusual scales to describe their goods but make sure you understand what they mean by these terms. I'm going to guess that you got them from the HCA and you're trying to use it to differentiate between GIA excellent grades. That is to say, your hoping to decide which one is 'most' exellent. Not even the publisher of the HCA claims it to be useful for this purpose. Maximizing fire & scintillation is on nearly everybodys list and it would be great if the tools worked this way but your assuming as fact some things that aren't coming from anyone who has actually seen the stone and that are generated by a tool that doesn't even claim to be appropriate for the task at hand. This seems like a stretch.

 

A difference you may have overlooked is that there is a price bump at 0.70cts. In terms of pricing, there's a premium for the F, a premium for the VS1 and a premium for the 0.70cts. Beyond serious outliers, which doesn't apply here, table, depth and fluorescence have no significant effect on pricing.

Edited by denverappraiser
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...