in need of all your expert help...

[f4fred]

Hi,

I’m in the market for an engagement ring and would really love some of your expert opinions. I’ve come across 3 diamonds that I’m interested in:

A - http://www.whiteflash.com/princess/Princess-cut-diamond-2361969.htm#

B - http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/Diamond_Details.aspx?idno=2265077

C - http://www.infinitydiamonds.be/diamond.php?ID=90


A:
1.501; H; VS1; AGS0
Depth: 75.2 Table: 72.4 Crown Angle: 44.8 Crown %: 12.1 Pavilion Angle: 40 Pavilion %: 60.1 Girdle: Thin to Medium Polish: Ideal Symmetry: Ideal Culet: Pointed Fluorescence: None
L/W: 1.02; 6.25-6.12x4.60

B:
1.505; F; VS2; AGS0
Depth: 73.1 Table: 78.2 Crown Angle: 39.5 Crown %: 8.1 Pavilion Angle: 41.4 Pavilion %: 62.9 Girdle: 2.7-2.9 Polish: Ideal Symmetry: Ideal Culet: Pointed Fluorescence: Negligible
L/W: 1.01; 6.33-6.27X4.58

C:
1.576; F; SI1; AGS0
Depth: 78.6 Table: 64% Crown Angle: 30.9 Crown %: 9.5 Pavilion Angle: 43.5 Pavilion %: 66.8 Girdle: 2.0-3.1
L/W: 1.01; 6.33-6.27X4.58

I’m not going to ask which one is ‘best’ but would someone please outline the tradeoffs between the three diamonds for me. I am most interested in details that I can visibly distinguish between. Oooh go on then, which one is your favorite 

Thank you all – great forum!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/3/2006 10:05:34 PM
Author:f4fred

I am most interested in details that I can visibly distinguish between.

If you would line these three on a piece of white paper here

...

I'd probably pic up the H first for some ever so slight tint, and hopefully tell apart the two Fs because of the different table sizes. Would not expect to pic up the SI versus VS - some may have visible inclusions, but more often than not it takes some patience and a loupe to locate inclusions etc.

It may be that one is slightly brighter and perhaps other small details would make each have a distinct 'personality' in some way. Have not looked at the pictures deliberately. Beyond the above mentioned, choice would be a matter of taste and nothing more, IMO.


If there wasn't such good info about them, the deep cut of the third or the large table of the second would have sounded quite bad - but this time, that sort of guess is not very meaningful IMO - obviously the diamonds are not dull, dark or smaller than expected for the weight because of these.

My 2c



PS (after taking a look) - the two at WF appear 'Sold'. have you put them on hold or are they gone !?

 

[f4fred]

on hold... thanks!

 

[f4fred]

any help would be fantastic. Thanks everyone!

 

[belle]

i like the first stone. the price makes it really nice!

 

[Kaleigh]

I agree with belle. The first stone is gorgeous!!!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Sorry, I cannot answer your question, since that would not be objective.

I just wanted to point out that you made a mistake in listing the measurements of the Infinity-stone. They are 6.31-6.30x4.95.

Still, this is very interesting, since it clearly shows how depth in a princess-cut is not related to spread. The deepest stone with 78.6% depth has the same or higher spread than the stones with 75.2 or 73.1 depth.

As for your questions, I could give you some clues, but that would probably pass the line of self-promotion. However, if you arrange to see them side-by-side, there are definite different characteristics that you will easily notice.

Live long,

 

[Amandas_Jewels]

Another thing to point out - that should be obvious to most of you - is that clarity and cutting proportions are more important in a Princess cut than a Round cut. A Princess cut has less facets to hide inclusions. Princess cuts with overly large tables are so ugly! UGH!