I''ve narrowed it down to 2.

[My rock to be]

I''ve been lurking around this site for a while now soaking up all the knowledge. (thanks!)

I''ve used that knowlege to help make my diamond selection. (My boyfriend is letting me pick the rock and then he''s doing the rest.) I''ve narrowed it down to two. Which is the better diamond in regards to performance etc?

#1) .81ct Diam 6.05-6.11 Color; H Clarity; SI1 Girdle; med to sl thick Spread; 6.52
Depth 58.9%, Table 57.8%, Crown 32.7, Pavil 40.7, Culet 0.6%
The HCA gave it a rating of 0.8 Ex, then VG, EX, EX, EX Performace = TIC range

#2) .78ct Ave. Diam 6.07 Color; H Clarity; VS2 Girdle; med to sl thick Spread; 6.59
Depth 58.5%, Table 53%, Don''t have the other measurments yet.
Still waiting for the Sarin report.

So with the info I have so far, which would you go with??

 

[My rock to be]

Anyone out there? Do I not have enough info available to make an informed decision?

This is my first post. (Maybe I"m not doing it right?)

 

[windowshopper]

i am thinking the table of 53 is getting erally small--number #1 looks FABULOUS

 

[Todd07]

I wouldn''t make a decision with that info, it''s premature

You need full spec on both to compare HCA scores. I''d also ask for an Idealscope image of each.

 

[My rock to be]

Thanks to both.

I''m having trouble getting the Sarin reports. They''re so reluctant to give it! I was told it''s really not necessary and that you can figure performance etc by the table & depth % alone. I think everyone who''s visited pricescope.com would disagree! Anyone else have this kind of trouble? You''d think they''d want to make a sale. Don''t they understand a lot of $$ will be spent and I want to make an informed decison?

If I can''t get the Sarin for #2, then should I just go with #1 and let that make my decison for me?

 

[My rock to be]

I finally got the Sarin report on #2. It did not do as well on the HCA - scored a 3.8.

So I went with #1!

My wonderful guy bought it for me from Blue Nile and he got it yesterday! It''s a beauty.

He let me take a peek. Now he''ll pick a setting and present it to me.... who knows when! It will be hard to wait.

 

[Mara]

I see I am too late, but I wanted to chime in and say that I was going to post that I would not be interested in #1 because of the table to depth ratio and the numbers. The crown angle does correspond well with the numbers and the pav angle, but I prefer my depths to be 60+ with tables no higher than 57 and crown angles in the 34s. Did you see other stones that possibly had something more like a 55% table to a 60% depth with corresponding angles as well?

I wonder if this #1 stone would be something somewhat similar to a BIC with that slightly more shallow crown angle and larger table to shallower depth. Could be the best of both worlds??

Anyhow, this is all a moot point since the decision has been made, but I had thought that the terming of the first stone as 'fabulous' was a little strong for not having more information on the stones, aka Idealscope images or even an image of the stone itself.

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

Date: 11/30/2004 1:11:42 PM
Author: My rock to be
I finally got the Sarin report on #2. It did not do as well on the HCA - scored a 3.8.

So I went with #1!

My wonderful guy bought it for me from Blue Nile and he got it yesterday! It''s a beauty.

He let me take a peek. Now he''ll pick a setting and present it to me.... who knows when! It will be hard to wait.

Congrats. Go over to the Show me the Ring forum. The ladies there have compiled a list for all the "ladies in waiting" I think you''ll be in good company!