Jump to content

Please Help! - 2 Possible Stones - One With Is And Asets Images


Gracetrump
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I have already written to ask what experts think about GIA 1189024186

I ran this through the HCA (1.8) and through the AGS calculator on David Atlas' site (1B) and thru the calculator I found on the enchanted diamond site (93.5). I am told that it is eye clean and received a photo that looks good (it's an si2 I color stone with faint fluorescence). I am waiting for that stone to be received by Ritani who will send ASET and Idealscope images.

 

My greatest concern is that this stone may be too deep (62.8) and the crown angle (36) might be too steep. The experts seem to indicate this could be nice, but it might not. So for now I am waiting for the images.

 

In the meanwhile, I have been sent info and images about GIA 5186351133. Images appear below. I am not an expert at reading these images so I am asking for help. This stone is an I color, SI1 stone with medium blue fluorescence - but I am told that this is eye clean as well. It is smaller than the stone I described above, but that is not an issue. I am looking for the more vibrant and sparklier eye clean stone. 

 

Both are similarly priced.

 

Here are the photos:

post-134604-0-43986100-1415149243_thumb.jpg

post-134604-0-99930000-1415149243_thumb.jpg

post-134604-0-43697000-1415149244_thumb.jpg

Edited by Gracetrump
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My advice is to go with the I SI1 (GIA-5186351133) - you said its an SI2 but I found it and its an SI1.

 

There is no doubt in my mind this will be a livelier diamond than 1189024186. I'm also not the biggest fan of the polisher who polished: 1189024186 

 

Whats the pricing on these too?

Edited by Joshua Niamehr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Joshua - I think you are confusing the 2 stones at one point: the 3.01 1133 is SI1, the 3.25 4186 is SI2, as Gracetrump said).

 

The 3.01 is closer to current "ideal" fashion - though it has an even thicker girdle, so the lower total depth does not translate into greater apparent size (not an issue for you, perhaps, but it does have some impact on price). Does it make it a better stone than something with a steeper crown but a shallower pavillion? Not in my eyes, and my (purely personal) preference for smaller tables and higher crowns would still lead me to prefer 4186.

 

FWIW, in terms of brightness and liveliness, I don't think you'd find them very different; the 3.25 probably is slightly less bright and has a little more fire/dispersion. The IS and ASET images look fine - but I find the value of these is more in comparing them across stones (when taken with a consistent technique) than in trying to predict absolute performance of a single stone.

 

Finally, when you see the 3.25, check carefully the centre of the stone; there may well be an inclusion that is slightly visible there... it shows up in both the ASET view and the normal photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies. I edited my original post so that it would read correctly after the error was pointed out to me by the first response. The 3.01 stone is I color Si1 and the 3.25 stone is I color Si2.

 

I am told that both are eye clean.

 

As I stated, the prices are similar - I just want to know if the experts here think either of these will be well cut (sparkly and firey) and if one might be more promising than the other.

 

So far I have heard that the 3.01 will out perform the 3.25, however, the smaller table and the steeper crown might make the 3.25 more pleasing to my eye since I prefer "sparkle" over "flash."

 

That said, could I do better than these? Should I look for better cut stones? Will doing so make a difference? Can any of you recommend a better stone? (assuming people are permitted to make such a recommendation).

 

I am looking at "around 3 carats" in an I or better color, eye clean stone with lots of life and sparkle.

 

Thank you,

 

 

 

Thank you for any further suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far I have heard that the 3.01 will out perform the 3.25, however, the smaller table and the steeper crown might make the 3.25 more pleasing to my eye since I prefer "sparkle" over "flash."

 

That said, could I do better than these? Should I look for better cut stones? Will doing so make a difference?

I think this is going to be one of those "need to see it" questions... my personal opinion is that - notwithstanding canon (34.5/40.8) - both stones are sufficiently well cut to truly come down to personal preferences; they both meet your other criteria (subject to confirming eye-cleanness - another "personal" issue). As such, I'd say that bringing further contenders into the ring is likely to confuse matters more than help you find one that is "so much better" than either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used a calculator on the David Atlas website and it came out to be a 1b. I know that 0 us ideal - so it this the too far from the ideal? Should I ask for ideascope images of this stone?

 

I can ask the vendor if I am indeed right that it is a 1b. I also entered data for the other stone I am considering and that one is a 1b as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1234345567
  • Length:9.48
  • Width:9.4
  • Depth:5.91
  • Total Depth:62.61%
  • Table percent:55
  • Crown height:16.5
  • Girdle (from):Medium
  • Girdle (to):Medium
  • Polish:Excellent / Very Good
  • Symmetry:Excellent / Very Good
  • Crown angle:36
  • Pavilion depth:43

  • Tab Percent: 1A
  • Crown Angle: 2B
  • Crown Height: 1B
  • Pavilion Depth: 1A
  • Girdle: 1A
  • Depth: 1B
  • Polish: 1A
  • Symmetry: 1A
  • TotalGrade: 1B
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...