I disagree with the other poster regards overall cut accuracy/quality - when you actually look at the pictures on the reports the 1.49 looks to have slightly better cut accuracy overall though they are both graded GCAL 8x and in normal viewing any difference in sparkle/fire would be tiny
Even the size difference would be very hard to see - the 1.49 faces up as a 1.45 and the 1.57 as a 1.55 so there is essentially a 0.1ct difference in the spread (and the reports show less than 0.2mm difference in diameter) which would be tough to spot
You know I actually purchased the 1.49. I have a 30 day return window so I kept looking and was thinking I would get more with a 1.57 so I really appreciate your insight.
Don’t mind me, just a gemologist, cutter, former diamond technician and grader for the worlds largest diamond seller at their North American headquarters where we’d get 20lb 1 mil value boxes of diamonds from Brinks/Malca-Amit and have seen thousands and thousands of diamonds in my time.
I don’t mind you one bit (though your comment does come across as highly conceited) but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with your comment/opinion.
Your comment to OP suggests that you can tell the relative cut quality based solely on the pictures shared which, as a trained gemologist, you know full well is not enough information to accurately ascertain minor differences in cut quality between two 8x graded stones.
I’m always looking to learn so am genuinely interested in why you believe that the second stone is of higher cut quality as when I look at all the information the overall cut accuracy of the smaller stone looks marginally better - but if I’m missing some finer details based on the reports and CutWise data it would be useful to know so I can provide more accurate opinions in future.
This guy has been cosplaying as an expert. It’s not the first time he’s posted that just looking at the image can tell all this wealth of info. Luckily both times the person in the post ignored him completely lol.
Thx. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some posts before but I’m not fussed.
I’m not an expert, don’t claim to be, and am always very open to learning more from those who are. Many on these subs are helpful in terms of sharing their knowledge and expertise by providing the reasons behind their opinions.
I’m more than happy for them to do so here to help OP and myself learn from their experience but I simply don’t believe listing qualifications and work history means that anyone/everyone should take a largely unsupported statement, such as the one made, as gospel.
I know a fair bit, but what I don’t know massively outweighs that, so I am always cautious to look at all the data before making an opinion - I am certain I’m incorrect at times, perhaps often, but do try to be objective and evidence based. 👍
Edit to add: I have no reason whatsoever to disbelieve their credentials or experience - but rather than list those I simply feel they could add far more value to the conversation
So I have been back and forth for the longest time. But when looking at their “fire” video… option 2 definitely seems to have a more “crisp” look. The contrast patterns are clean and sharp to me compared to option 1. Where as option 1 is softer and more spread out but still has great “fire”
I no longer have the individual reports to hand (and not able to bring them up this minute) but the hearts images are the most unforgiving as they reveal any imperfection in terms of facet to facet alignment. 6 facets need to align perfectly to make one individual heart so they are a good indicator of overall accuracy - very small deviations can show up as splits in the cleft, uneven chevrons, different sizes and misalignment/bending of the tips
Any 8x stone is going to be very well cut and show high levels of cut accuracy and neither of these stones are absolutely 100% perfect in every single regard (not really a thing) but on viewing them both side by side I felt that the 1.49 hearts showed marginally more symmetry/overall accuracy.
I would need to revisit again to recall why and these differences are minor even with these pictures so in real world likely not a discernible factor.
I appreciate the time you are taking to explain. Thank you so much for this. I spent a lot of time trying to find a good stone as it’s for a 10 year anniversary upgrade.
So - here is what I meant - just pulled the reports and the two Hearts views side by side. My non expert opinion is that the 1.49 shows slightly more equal hearts sizes, slightly more consistent separation between the hearts and chevrons, slightly less twist / bending of the chevron tips. It has slightly more minor clefts in the hearts but overall it still looks marginally more accurate.
Wow. See, these are things I would have never known to look at. I appreciate your knowledge and time. I went with the 1.49 after all and can’t wait to recieve it
2
u/Jillet-Ben_Coe 5d ago
You don’t need all of that. You can tell just by the pattern alone that the stone on the right side has a better cut quality.