Quick question: Which Diamond do you suggest?!

[needing.help]

I emailed yesterday about a diamond I was considering buying and everyone was very helpful, so one more question: I have to decide ASAP between two PRINCESS CUT diamonds for an engagement ring (platinum ring), and I was wondering which sounded to you knowledgeable folks to be a better deal:

2.07 ct. G VVS2
7.23x7.07x4.94 mm
medium girdle
no culet
69.9% depth
66% table
10% crown height
56.8% pavilion height
(this is the diamond i emailed about yesterday, and i can buy it at $16,821) (don''t know crown or pav. angle)

OR

1.96 ct. G VS1
6.75x6.73x4.86 mm
thick girdle
no culet
72.2% depth
71% table
12.6% crown height
55.2% pav. height
28.7% crown angle
42.2%pavilion angle
(for about $15,500)

Please give me your thoughts: (1) should i buy the first stone, because it has better numbers, even though it''s more than i wanted to spend, or should i go with the less expensive stone? (2) Is the second stone ok in terms of cut, etc.?

THANKS!

 

[belle]

have you seen either of these stones in person? (forgive me if you''ve answered this already)

 

[needing.help]

The second (less expensive one) I have seen (looks great to me, but i have no experience), the larger I have not . The data for both are based on GIA certificates and Sarin reports. I have the ability to return both if not satisfied.

 

[researcher]

I''m not an expert, but I would say the numbers on the second stone look better. You will probably have more brilliance because of the slightly larger table, and the crown height is better. The only thing I don''t like is the Thick girdle, but that''s not a big deal (and it may help to prevent chipping). I would need to see ideal scope or similar images to really say which stone is better (you need to see the light leakage and scintillation to truly judge the stones), but my personal preference is for the second stone.

Good luck!

 

[princesslover]

Date: 12/16/2004 12:49:36 PM
Author: researcher
I''m not an expert, but I would say the numbers on the second stone look better. You will probably have more brilliance because of the slightly larger table, and the crown height is better. The only thing I don''t like is the Thick girdle, but that''s not a big deal (and it may help to prevent chipping). I would need to see ideal scope or similar images to really say which stone is better (you need to see the light leakage and scintillation to truly judge the stones), but my personal preference is for the second stone.

Good luck!

Are you kidding?!

The first stone has better numbers by FAR! Smaller table will give you MORE brilliance... Also, the smaller depth is a plus, since the spread will be much bigger

. AND the crown height is within the AGA 1A - which is ideal! (check the stones on the AGA web site!)

I know there are many arguments against buying a fancy unseen, but if you have a return period, go by the one that looks the best by numbers and return it if you''re not happy..

Well ,that''s my 2 cents anyway...

 

[belle]

#1 has the better #''s..........but then again, they''re just that, #''s. could you arrange to see them both? that would make the decision all that much easier. nothing like side by side comparison!

 

[researcher]

IMO both stones are nice, but as someone who owns a stone that scored a triple VH on the BScope, I still disagree. The size of the table most greatly impacts brilliance (white light), while the crown height most greatly impacts fire. Having a stone with a nice table AND an ideal crown means that stone is going to be a true performer! Yes, lots of people seek out princess cut stones with the smallest depth, but if you look at the pavilion height of the first stone it''s not ideal. True we would need the pavilion angles and crown angles to know for sure, but out of all the stones I''ve seen I personally prefer stones with the table around 68%-72%.

 

[researcher]

Date: 12/16/2004 3

6:54 PM
Author: princesslover

Date: 12/16/2004 12:49:36 PM
Author: researcher
I''m not an expert, but I would say the numbers on the second stone look better. You will probably have more brilliance because of the slightly larger table, and the crown height is better. The only thing I don''t like is the Thick girdle, but that''s not a big deal (and it may help to prevent chipping). I would need to see ideal scope or similar images to really say which stone is better (you need to see the light leakage and scintillation to truly judge the stones), but my personal preference is for the second stone.

Good luck!

Are you kidding?!

The first stone has better numbers by FAR! Smaller table will give you MORE brilliance... Also, the smaller depth is a plus, since the spread will be much bigger

. AND the crown height is within the AGA 1A - which is ideal! (check the stones on the AGA web site!)

I know there are many arguments against buying a fancy unseen, but if you have a return period, go by the one that looks the best by numbers and return it if you''re not happy..

Well ,that''s my 2 cents anyway...

Princesslover, what is your occupation? I''m just curious because I find it rude for you to ask if I''m kidding when I''ve chosen a spectacular stone for myself, and have helped many other people find triple VH stones (but would understand it more if you''re an expert in diamonds). I may not be in the diamond business, but I am extremely well educated and at least know enough not to completely disregard someone else''s opinion. It''s one thing to say you disagree, but use a little tact next time, please.

 

[princesslover]

Researher,
please accept my apology! I certainly answered a little quick - before thinking my wording through...

I guess I was just wondering why you would advocate a stone that falls in the 1B category rather than one in the 1A...The best cut out there in AGA''s mind...

Like I said before, the numbers in fancies are really hard to go by, but if you''re comparing the 2 you''re getting a BIGGER stone AND one that rates higher on the AGA charts, which is really the only thing we have to go by today.

But in my opinion I would go buy the #1 stone if it is not possible to see the 2 side by side before.

Again, my sincerest apology for being so cranky in my writing!!

 

[princesslover]

Also, Researher, what is a triple VH stone? Do you mean AGS 000?

Just curious...

 

[needing.help]

Thank you all for your assistance and helpful comments! In the end, I decided to go with the second stone, as I got a further discount on it and it just fit my budget better. This is a terrific site that was so incredibly helpful!

 

[belle]

please post pics of your stone, we love to see nice rocks!!!

 

[researcher]

Apology accepted

One thing you should be aware of is BOTH these stones score a 1A. The only thing the second stone did not score a 1A on is the table, but overall it''s rated just as good. And taking all the numbers into consideration, the second stone will have more fire. Although it''s table is on the larger side, the crown couldn''t be better! When you take that into account, the table is not an issue. True, the first stone will look bigger (in part because it is bigger), but I personally believe the relationship between numbers on the second stone will lead to a stone that''s more brilliant (white light) and full of fire (colored light). The reason stones with slightly larger tables are more brilliant (if they don''t leak light) is there''s more surface area for them to reflect light off of. I LOVE that I can blind people with my e-ring, and WISH I could do it with my Tiffany earrings (they don''t even compare and they''re round!).

As for size, the ideal width for the first stone would be 7.14 (assuming an ideal 1 carat is 5.6 across) and the actual is 7.15, and for the second it would be 7.00 and the actual is 6.74. So, you''re definitely right that the first stone doesn''t hide as much of its weight. That being said, I still lean towards the second stone because of the crown. Honestly though, I would ask to see them side by side before making a decision. I don''t think there will be much of a difference in their beauty--it just depends on what you like to see in a stone

Oh, and as for the triple VH, that''s the score my stone received on the Brilliance Scope for White Light, Colored Light, and Scintillation. In other words, compared to the other thousands of princess cut stones that have been tested, my stone scored at the top of the top (two of my scores were off the charts). Although this test is not needed, it sure does give you a peace of mind about your stone!

 

[researcher]

Congrats! I think you''re going to love that stone. It really does have, IMO, fantastic numbers!