Oh and further to this, I thought I'd ask them how much a 1.5 I VS2 would cost and they searched the system and it's about $8,000 more!!! I find that remarkable. I realize the 1, 1.5, 2 etc are milestone carat weights, however, I can't really believe the price difference! I really hope this 1.45 is available at least to check out in person! ..waiting, waiting...
Tiffany E-ring Upgrade/HCA vs Triple Excellent - Decisions, decisions!
- Thread starter aaluv
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
Oh and further to this, I thought I'd ask them how much a 1.5 I VS2 would cost and they searched the system and it's about $8,000 more!!! I find that remarkable. I realize the 1, 1.5, 2 etc are milestone carat weights, however, I can't really believe the price difference! I really hope this 1.45 is available at least to check out in person! ..waiting, waiting...
Not "bad" but not ideal. You lose a lot of the light return that way, but you also lose diameter for carat weight because the weight is hidden in the depth.
Hi!
I almost feel silly asking such detailed info on a public forum, but I suppose this info could help someone as other peoples posts have certainly helped me!!! I have specs on one more diamond and now I'm really confused. I have looked at H vs. I in the boutiques and can sometimes spot a difference and sometimes not (when side by side). Not sure on a daily basis if I would notice an I vs. the H I've been currently wearing for the past years. Also as the new diamond wil be much larger (more than double) I'm afraid I'll notice the colour more...
Aside from that here's a new contender (table size too large?) How do you think it compares to the other two options (still waiting for them to come in!)
New contender:
1.48 H Si1 (HCA 1.7) ~1k more than Option 1
MEASUREMENTS 7.21 - 7.25 x 4.52 mm Triple Ex
TOTAL DEPTH PERCENTAGE 62.5%
TABLE SIZE PERCENTAGE 57%
CROWN HEIGHT PERCENTAGE 15.4%
CROWN ANGLE 35.2°
PAVILION DEPTH PERCENTAGE 43.0%
PAVILION ANGLE 40.7°
GIRDLE THICKNESS Medium To Slightly Thick
GIRDLE FINISH Faceted
CULET None
LOWER HALF LENGTH PERCENTAGE 75%
STAR LENGTH PERCENTAGE 55%
Option 1: 1.39 H VS2 (HCA 1.3) ~ 2k more than Option 2
MEASUREMENTS 7.12 - 7.18 x 4.43 mm (minimum girdle diameter - maximum girdle diameter x depth in mm),
Double Excellent/Very Good Symmetry, no fluorescence, no culet, faceted med to slightly thick girdle
TOTAL DEPTH PERCENTAGE 62.0%
TABLE SIZE PERCENTAGE 56%
CROWN HEIGHT PERCENTAGE 15.8%
CROWN ANGLE 35.4°
PAVILION DEPTH PERCENTAGE 42.7%
PAVILION ANGLE 40.6°
LOWER HALF LENGTH PERCENTAGE 80%
STAR LENGTH PERCENTAGE 55%
Option 2: 1.45 I VS2 (HCA 2.7)
MEASUREMENTS 7.24 - 7.25 x 4.53 mm, triple excellent
FLUORESCENCE None
CUT PROPORTIONS
TOTAL DEPTH PERCENTAGE 62.5%
TABLE SIZE PERCENTAGE 55%
CROWN HEIGHT PERCENTAGE 16.0%
CROWN ANGLE 35.1°
PAVILION DEPTH PERCENTAGE 43.3%
PAVILION ANGLE 41.0°
GIRDLE THICKNESS Thin To Medium
GIRDLE FINISH Faceted
CULET None
LOWER HALF LENGTH PERCENTAGE 80%
STAR LENGTH PERCENTAGE 50%
Also, what is lower half length % and star length %, any significance?
Sorry for all the questions, but very much appreciate any insight/opinions!
I almost feel silly asking such detailed info on a public forum, but I suppose this info could help someone as other peoples posts have certainly helped me!!! I have specs on one more diamond and now I'm really confused. I have looked at H vs. I in the boutiques and can sometimes spot a difference and sometimes not (when side by side). Not sure on a daily basis if I would notice an I vs. the H I've been currently wearing for the past years. Also as the new diamond wil be much larger (more than double) I'm afraid I'll notice the colour more...
Aside from that here's a new contender (table size too large?) How do you think it compares to the other two options (still waiting for them to come in!)
New contender:
1.48 H Si1 (HCA 1.7) ~1k more than Option 1
MEASUREMENTS 7.21 - 7.25 x 4.52 mm Triple Ex
TOTAL DEPTH PERCENTAGE 62.5%
TABLE SIZE PERCENTAGE 57%
CROWN HEIGHT PERCENTAGE 15.4%
CROWN ANGLE 35.2°
PAVILION DEPTH PERCENTAGE 43.0%
PAVILION ANGLE 40.7°
GIRDLE THICKNESS Medium To Slightly Thick
GIRDLE FINISH Faceted
CULET None
LOWER HALF LENGTH PERCENTAGE 75%
STAR LENGTH PERCENTAGE 55%
Option 1: 1.39 H VS2 (HCA 1.3) ~ 2k more than Option 2
MEASUREMENTS 7.12 - 7.18 x 4.43 mm (minimum girdle diameter - maximum girdle diameter x depth in mm),
Double Excellent/Very Good Symmetry, no fluorescence, no culet, faceted med to slightly thick girdle
TOTAL DEPTH PERCENTAGE 62.0%
TABLE SIZE PERCENTAGE 56%
CROWN HEIGHT PERCENTAGE 15.8%
CROWN ANGLE 35.4°
PAVILION DEPTH PERCENTAGE 42.7%
PAVILION ANGLE 40.6°
LOWER HALF LENGTH PERCENTAGE 80%
STAR LENGTH PERCENTAGE 55%
Option 2: 1.45 I VS2 (HCA 2.7)
MEASUREMENTS 7.24 - 7.25 x 4.53 mm, triple excellent
FLUORESCENCE None
CUT PROPORTIONS
TOTAL DEPTH PERCENTAGE 62.5%
TABLE SIZE PERCENTAGE 55%
CROWN HEIGHT PERCENTAGE 16.0%
CROWN ANGLE 35.1°
PAVILION DEPTH PERCENTAGE 43.3%
PAVILION ANGLE 41.0°
GIRDLE THICKNESS Thin To Medium
GIRDLE FINISH Faceted
CULET None
LOWER HALF LENGTH PERCENTAGE 80%
STAR LENGTH PERCENTAGE 50%
Also, what is lower half length % and star length %, any significance?
Sorry for all the questions, but very much appreciate any insight/opinions!
Ok sorry for the delay. I have been interrupted about 30 times to do anything else but this today with work stuff. Coworker iPhone drama, etc.
Definitions:
Star Length Percentage:
The Star Facets are the small, triangular facets found next to the table facet on top of the diamond, The length percentage is the projected distance between the table edge and the point of a star facet.
Lower-Half Length Percentage:
Average lower-half length * relative to the distance between the culet and the girdle.
(*Lower-half Length: the horizontal distance between the girdle edge and where the two pavilion mains meet)
The longer the lower girdle facets, the more fire and scintillation the stone should have relative to the crown facets to a point (you don't want to go too much beyond 80%)--assuming the angles match up. Ideally you want the Lower Half to be around 75-80. Since the GIA usually rounds the numbers, it could be anywhere within the range if it's a 75 or 80. If the stars are around a 50-55% you will get great light return back through those facets. There is a direct correlation between the percentage of the stars and the lower half facets, the larger that percentage on the lower half, the skinnier the arrows are and eventually with a higher % of star facet the better the amount of light return.
Short answer--the higher the percentage on the lower half, the skinnier the arrows but the more fire and scintillation the stone should have assuming the angles still are appropriately aligned for ideal cut.
Regarding the stones you've posted...Those 1.45/1.48s you probably should eliminate unless in person you adore either of them, Esp the new one. They are facing up too small for their carat weight. A 1.5ct stone should be around 7.4mm, and those are in the 7.2-7.25 range. Really all of them aren't facing up properly. Which is why I've made comments a few time about their depth being a little too deep, but their diameters are really bothersome on these two in the 1.4x range. Those stones are going to look like a 1.35ct diamond (7.2mm) not like the almost 1.5ct you're paying for. The best of all so far is that 1.39. It's the best diameter for it's size, still a tiny bit small for it's weight but not like the others.
Definitions:
Star Length Percentage:
The Star Facets are the small, triangular facets found next to the table facet on top of the diamond, The length percentage is the projected distance between the table edge and the point of a star facet.
Lower-Half Length Percentage:
Average lower-half length * relative to the distance between the culet and the girdle.
(*Lower-half Length: the horizontal distance between the girdle edge and where the two pavilion mains meet)
The longer the lower girdle facets, the more fire and scintillation the stone should have relative to the crown facets to a point (you don't want to go too much beyond 80%)--assuming the angles match up. Ideally you want the Lower Half to be around 75-80. Since the GIA usually rounds the numbers, it could be anywhere within the range if it's a 75 or 80. If the stars are around a 50-55% you will get great light return back through those facets. There is a direct correlation between the percentage of the stars and the lower half facets, the larger that percentage on the lower half, the skinnier the arrows are and eventually with a higher % of star facet the better the amount of light return.
Short answer--the higher the percentage on the lower half, the skinnier the arrows but the more fire and scintillation the stone should have assuming the angles still are appropriately aligned for ideal cut.
Regarding the stones you've posted...Those 1.45/1.48s you probably should eliminate unless in person you adore either of them, Esp the new one. They are facing up too small for their carat weight. A 1.5ct stone should be around 7.4mm, and those are in the 7.2-7.25 range. Really all of them aren't facing up properly. Which is why I've made comments a few time about their depth being a little too deep, but their diameters are really bothersome on these two in the 1.4x range. Those stones are going to look like a 1.35ct diamond (7.2mm) not like the almost 1.5ct you're paying for. The best of all so far is that 1.39. It's the best diameter for it's size, still a tiny bit small for it's weight but not like the others.
Okay, thanks very much Ame! That's what I thought about the new contender especially. I'm still waiting on the 1.39 so might as well get the 1.45 in to compare.
I think I'm leaning more and more towards maintaining an H (as I'm used to this colour and it provides me comfort) and perhaps waiting it out for a shallower diamond. I know I've heard from others they exist, but I know it's very far and few between...esp when you're looking for a particular colour, size, etc. and the fact that in the past month the shallowest they could find was 61.9!
Will wait it out, until the next option comes up!
Thanks again, honestly, your advice is priceless! =)
I think I'm leaning more and more towards maintaining an H (as I'm used to this colour and it provides me comfort) and perhaps waiting it out for a shallower diamond. I know I've heard from others they exist, but I know it's very far and few between...esp when you're looking for a particular colour, size, etc. and the fact that in the past month the shallowest they could find was 61.9!
Will wait it out, until the next option comes up!
Thanks again, honestly, your advice is priceless! =)
It's my pleasure. I really think if you're spending this much for the brand, that getting exactly what you want is worth it.
As to the H vs I thing, I completely spaced on that sorry....I personally think it's not going to be bothersome to your eyes, and even though the larger the stone, the more body color will show, a well cut I is not going to show the color face up, and next to the H you will barely tell a difference, if at all.
Keep pushing for the stones in the 60ish range for depth. They definitely have them.
Another option is to see what your upgrade budget would get you if you bought elsewhere (states or even Blue Nile) to get a setting almost identical to a Tiffany setting, and you can keep your current ring for sentiment.
As to the H vs I thing, I completely spaced on that sorry....I personally think it's not going to be bothersome to your eyes, and even though the larger the stone, the more body color will show, a well cut I is not going to show the color face up, and next to the H you will barely tell a difference, if at all.
Keep pushing for the stones in the 60ish range for depth. They definitely have them.
Another option is to see what your upgrade budget would get you if you bought elsewhere (states or even Blue Nile) to get a setting almost identical to a Tiffany setting, and you can keep your current ring for sentiment.
I was sold on the I colour until I recently went into a different Tiffany boutique and could clearly tell I vs. H both face up and from the side in their store light setting. Granted they were side by side, and perhaps I wouldn't notice a difference if the I was on its own, but I could see a difference unfortunately...not a huge difference I guess, but nonetheless enough to put a little doubt in my mind...
I've played around with the non US options, but decided to stick to Tiffany. I'd have to spend more to get this size than I would at Tiffany, so I'd rather trade in! We always had the intention of upgrading, so although I'm typically very sentimental, it was always in the back of my mind that I'd be letting go of this particular diamond!
Will keep on pushing for shallower stones, hopefully some day soon I'll be posting a perfect on paper diamond which will blow me away in person! =)
I've played around with the non US options, but decided to stick to Tiffany. I'd have to spend more to get this size than I would at Tiffany, so I'd rather trade in! We always had the intention of upgrading, so although I'm typically very sentimental, it was always in the back of my mind that I'd be letting go of this particular diamond!
Will keep on pushing for shallower stones, hopefully some day soon I'll be posting a perfect on paper diamond which will blow me away in person! =)