Need help choosing between diamonds by TOMORROW!!!!

[klanesmith]

I am about to purchase a diamond tomorrow evening, but I am having a hrad time choosing between two stones. Any help would be appreciated as I need to decide VERY QUICKLY!
I don''t have the paperwork on hand with the percentages, but I will describe what I know about them:

Stone #1:
Carat: 1.10
Color: F
Clarity: SI1 (Virtually No Inclusions when viewed through loup- only small clouds if at all- SI1 seems a bit too harsh a rating for this stone)
Polish & Symmetry: Good
Cut is a little deep in the crown
Fluorescence: Medium Blue
Cert: GIA

Stone #2:
Carat: 1.03
Color: D
Clarity: SI1 (When viewed through the loup, there is one small inclusion just off-center in the table, and approximately 2-3 at the bottom of the stone)
Polish & Symmetry: Very Good
Tolkowsky Ideal Cut
Fluorescence: None
Cert: EGL

I have taken them both into the sun, and they are both pretty. I think that Stone #2 has more sparkle than Stone #1, but my fiance thinks they are equal. Stone #1 has a clearer look to it such that you can see through it more. Stone#2 has darker areas, more like a mirror. For an example, go to this page: http://diamonds.pricescope.com/symm.asp The top stone is more like Stone #1 and the bottom stone is more like Stone #2.
Stone #2 is only about $500 more than Stone #1.
How can Stone #2 have and ideal cut but only very good symmetry?
Which stone should I buy?
Please help!

 

[belle]

buy what you like!!! you have seen them both together, which one is better? don''t get too caught up in the #''s.......

 

[Hest88]

Symmetry is not critical. I think #2 sounds like the superior stone.

 

[klanesmith]

If symmetry is not critical, why would #2 be the superior stone? Based on cut & color?

 

[Hest88]

Your fiance said #2 sparkled more, and from your description #1 sounds somewhat shallow.

 

[klanesmith]

Actually, I thought stone #2 sparkled more, not my fiance. Stone #1 has the deeper cut, so I am not sure what you mean when you say it is shallow. Maybe we are talking about the opposite stones and the numbers are switched?
#1 is the F, #2 is the D. Which one do you recommend?

 

[cushioncut]

I think people could make a more informed decision if you gave the tables, depths, and the crown and pav angles...

 

[reena]

Date: 12/14/2004 3:33:38 PM
Author: cushioncut
I think people could make a more informed decision if you gave the tables, depths, and the crown and pav angles...

right, or, like, shape?

 

[belle]

Date: 12/14/2004 3:36:11 PM
Author: reena

Date: 12/14/2004 3:33:38 PM
Author: cushioncut
I think people could make a more informed decision if you gave the tables, depths, and the crown and pav angles...

right, or, like, shape?

yes, that would help.

(i''m done being bad today)

 

[klanesmith]

sorry- it''s round.
And, like I said, unfortunately I don''t have the exact specs handy. I appreciate any advice you can provide without those numbers.

 

[reena]

 

[reena]

Date: 12/14/2004 3:44:41 PM
Author: klanesmith
sorry- it's round.
And, like I said, unfortunately I don't have the exact specs handy. I appreciate any advice you can provide without those numbers.

honestly, i appreciate the idea that you don't want to get too bogged down in numbers, but personally i wouldn't purchase a stone without considering at least the BASIC specs--ie, table, depth, measurements. is there a way you can obtain that information? otherwise, nobody is really going to be able to offer you meaningful advice.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Klanesmith
sounds like #2 is a egl europe cert if so they can be brought cheaper than a gia cert for the same grade. what are the specs ?

 

[klanesmith]

Okay, I am at home now. Here are the specs:
Stone #1
GIA Cert. #10751328, June 29, 1999
Cutting Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 6.38-6.49 x 4.19mm
Weight: 1.10 Carats
Depth: 66.1% (it is a faxed copy, so it could be 86.1%, but it looks more like 66.1%)
Table: 60%
Girdle: Very thin to Very thick, Faceted
Cutlet: None
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Clarity: SI1 (Eye-Clean, and no black inclusions at all)
Color: F
Fluorescence: Medium Blue
In the comments section, it says that the crown angles are greater than 36 degrees, Surface graining is not shown, it also says, "Clarity Grade is based on..." and then the faxed copy becomes unreadable, so I will find out what that says tomorrow.

Stone #2
EGL Cert. #2410455324, October 26, 2004
Cutting Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 6.40-6.32 x 4.01mm
Weight: 1.03 Carats
Depth: 63.1%
Table Width: 57%
Crown Ht: 15%
Pavillion Depth: 43%
Girdle: Slightly Thick, Faceted
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Clarity: SI1 (Eye-Clean, but the following inclusions are visible through the loupe: 1 small dark inclusion just off center of table and 2-3 small inclusions visible near bottom of stone)
Graining: Nil
Color: D
Fluorescence: None
"Tolkowsky Ideal Cut"

Again, Stone #2 (The D) looks a bit more brilliant to me, but my fiance thinks the two are equal. Stone #2 looks whiter (consistent with a higher color rating), and the appearance of the two is very similar to the stones on the following page: http://diamonds.pricescope.com/symm.asp
The top stone looking like Stone #1, and the bottom stone looks like Stone #2 because stome #1 has a "clearer" look, more like glass, and Stone #2 has a darker look, more like a bunch of mirrors.

I hope this provides enough info. for any of you to make recommendations as to which stone I should buy. I appreciate your advice!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Klanesmith
none of thee above ,the cut is way too deep...wow #1 is 66% depth ? and looks like is out of round.

 

[reena]

yeah, i believe they say that a well-cut 1 carat RB should have a diameter of 6.5mm. #2 doesn''t make that, and #1 barely does even though it is 1.10 carats. so basically that means you''re paying for weight you can''t see.

 

[fire&ice]

From what you posted number two isn''t bad. But, I would drop ten and punt. In other words, start over.

What are the prices?