Jump to content

This Or That?


AYG2014
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

Looking at choosing between the below 2 diamonds. Cost difference is about $2k, with the larger ct weight being more expensive.

 

Thanks,

 

--------------

 

1.67ct

Measurements 7.72 - 7.74 x 4.60 mm

G/Si1/ExExEx

Depth 59.5%
Table 60%
Crown Angle 33.5°
Crown Height 13.5%
Pavilion Angle 41.0°
Pavilion Depth 43.0%
Star Length 50%
Lower Half 80%
Girdle Medium, Faceted, 3.0%
Culet None

 

1.80ct

Measurements 7.89 - 7.92 x 4.72 mm

H/Si1/ExExEx

Depth 59.8%
Table 58%
Crown Angle 32.5°
Crown Height 13.5%
Pavilion Angle 40.8°
Pavilion Depth 43.0%
Star Length 45%
Lower Half 75%
Girdle Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted, 3.5%
Culet None
 

 

 

 

 

 

post-134542-0-09960900-1412913520_thumb.jpg

post-134542-0-40063600-1412913752_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they GIA Certified? Do you have the cert numbers? I like the 1.67 because of the Lower Half being 80% - this means a pinfire type of life from the diamond where the sparkles go all the way towards the end of the diamond. The 1.80 will have more of a chunky sparkle (great too) but I prefer the pinfire.

 

The 1.67 does have a fairly large table too, I dont mind that, some people do.  

 

Here is a terrific video from Good old Gold on the topic: http://bit.ly/ZSTakr

 

Try our cut score tool to get our perspective on the diamond: https://enchanteddiamonds.com/cut_score_calculator

 

We rate out of 100 and take tremendous amount of factors into consideration when outputting our score. But you do need the GIA cert number. 

 

How much are they asking for these diamonds?

Edited by Joshua Niamehr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other question is to what extent are the inclusions visible, and to what extent does this bother you. Unfortunately, short of actually seeing the diamonds (or at least having someone look at them), there is no definitive test. Bear in mind that the amount of red ink is not correlated with the visibility of stuff; the twinning wisps (and feather) in the second image may well be less visible than the much smaller crystals in the first.

 

FWIW, BTW, I am of exactly the opposite opinion than Joshua on pinfire vs. chunks. That doesn't make me right or him wrong, but it is a personal preference (and given the way in which GIA rounds numbers, there is a good chance that you wouldn't see any difference between "75" and "80" lower girdle anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AYG2014, I'd be hard pressed to recommend diamond 2 over diamond 1, solely due to the significant price difference. 

 

.13ct weight is insignificant. If you look at the actual measurements, we're looking at about .1mm difference, so basically a strand of hair. The size difference is negligible.

 

The video Josh posted from Good Old Gold (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9FtRj_IG9Y), clearly illustrates the differences in sparkle, and fire that even small differences in lower girdle facet length can have.

 

Both diamonds have great proportions, angles, and measurements. Both would certainly look gorgeous. Again, must agree with Davide that we could all offer a more informed decision with some better information about the size and severity of the inclusions. 

 

But, without further clarity data,  given how negligible the differences are between the 2 diamonds,  I think you're better off saving the 2K. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I have not seen them, and won't likely to see them unless I purchase as they are off shore.

I think the price difference is mainly due to ct weight difference.

So from what I'm reading, the larger 60% table size is a negative?

Neil - are you saying you like the 1.8ct proportion better?

The Jeweller said the 1.67ct is exceptional in clarity for the grade (she hasn't seen it either, so it's based on paper). She also mentioned in her opinion the 1.8ct is taller than ideal proportion, not sure what that means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like the pavilion angle/crown angle better and yes, I prefer smaller tables, but I wouldn't say 60 is a negative, just that I prefer smaller.  It's 'excellent' for a reason.   $2000 is quite a premium for a 7% size bump, especially since you're also dropping a color grade at the same time.  

 

May I ask why you're buying an overseas stone that you can't look at before you're committed?

 

'Taller' usually refers to either total depth ratio or crown height.  Ask her what she means.  The crown height is identical and difference in depth ratio is right at the calibration margins for the measuring equipment so I seriously wouldn't worry about it.  

 

The clarity may indeed be better, but you can't grade clarity based on the amount of ink used in a plotting diagram.  I would be curious how she came to the conclusion of 'exceptional clarity for the grade'. 

Edited by denverappraiser
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for all the very helpful tips. Unfortunately the information opens up to more questions than they answer lol.

 

Joshua - thanks for the links. Your cut score is most interesting. One returned low 90s, and one returned high 80s. Is that a no brainer in your eyes if we disregard pricing?

Also, you seem to be suggesting that higher Lower girdle length would produce more sparkle, is that generally the rule of thumb?

 

Neil - I revisited your comment about the table width. I can see that most great cut diamonds have the table width at around 56-57%. I tend to agree that it is excellent for a reason. Now, is there anyway that a 60% table width would still produce exceptional sparkle/fire by having other dimensions in the right proportion with the 60% table? Or am I entirely off the mark, that the table % doesn't contribute to this??

 

Davide - it's hard to tell how visible are those inclusions. Given its off shore I don't believe the jeweller would have any idea either. She did tell me that their 'inspector' informed her that the 1.6 is a Si1+, which is their code for top clarity Si1/boarder line VS2. I'm not sure if I entirely believe that statement.

 

Jonathan - thanks for your comments. So you're in agreement that the visible difference with the naked eye would be highly insignificant that it wouldn't justify the cost difference (of course I understand this is purely theoretical based on GIA info). Just curious, what do you think would be a fair cost difference between the two?

 

Neil - you mentioned the 1.8 has superior pav/crown angles, as I understand, these directly contributes how the light would travel through the diamond, thus affect their sparkle/fire. How do you think that compares to Joshua's theory of lower girdle tend to produce more sparkle? I.e. Which would be a more dominating factor in your opinion?

 

 

Thanks again for everyone's input on this. I may be over thinking it, but I'm the kind of person that doesn't mind details. I find this highly educational, so more info the better.

 

 

Thanks.

A

Edited by AYG2014
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's possible that that's a lovely stone.  In fact it's likely.  We're all splitting hairs here, and we all have the same incomplete data to work from.  This anonymous 'inspector' is the only one who is really adding anything, and you don't know if they even exist. 

 

The 'diamond finder' database is an easy and handy way to shop prices.  Enter in a set of specs, look at what things cost at various vendors and then tweak the specs.  There are a few other variables at play here but diamonds in this size range are generally priced 'per carat'.  That means that, all other things being equal, a 7% heavier stone will generally cost 7% more.   The tricky part has to do with the fact that all things aren't equal.  You've got a color change, you've got a claimed clarity change, and you've got some cut questions.  

Edited by denverappraiser
  • Like 1
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...