momothree
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
- Messages
- 181
I somehow chipped the center EC in my engagement ring and it is in the process of being replaced by my insurance company (they are being **wonderful**, by the way, but I had been thinking of switching to a cash-out policy like Jewelers Mutual or Chubb but never got around to it. Now that I''m in this position, I can fully appreciate how having cash in hand might be somewhat easier and less restrictive.) Anyhow...
I have been given info on three stones, which all seem promising. Nothing yet on crown height percentage or girdle thickness which I have asked for but there is the possibility that I might not get the info. It sounds like the insurance company''s replacement consultant buys stones from little old men in black bags who are not used to having questions asked of them. Also, all three stones have a GIA cert. Ok, here goes:
1) 1.27 I VS1
7.44 x 5.41 (L/W 1.37)
depth = 64.7%
table = 64.0%%
2) 1.3 H Vs1
7.80 x 5.38 x 3.39 (L/W 1.45)
depth = 63.0%
table = 61.0%
3)1.27 H VVS2
7.07 x 5.55 x 3.65 (L/W 1.27)
depth = 62%
table = 65.8%
I have read pretty much every thread I could find about ECs and it seems like all three have the potential to be nice stones. I also know that its important to look at them in person but I am nearly positive I will not get to look at more than one at a time. I believe I have to make my choice based on the numbers, and then reject it if I don''t like it. So, if you had to choose one sight unseen, which would you choose and why?
I have gone back and forth but so far I''m leaning towards #3 even though it faces up a tad smaller than my old stone. It seems like it has a much better cut (mine has one of those super large tables people warn about) and it''s a higher color and clarity. It also has a boxier look to it, which my other stone had and I really liked. I have no objections to changing shape/proportion but I am concerned that stone #2 might be a little on the long side even though it falls within the classic proportions.
I would welcome any and all thoughts. Thanks!!
I have been given info on three stones, which all seem promising. Nothing yet on crown height percentage or girdle thickness which I have asked for but there is the possibility that I might not get the info. It sounds like the insurance company''s replacement consultant buys stones from little old men in black bags who are not used to having questions asked of them. Also, all three stones have a GIA cert. Ok, here goes:
1) 1.27 I VS1
7.44 x 5.41 (L/W 1.37)
depth = 64.7%
table = 64.0%%
2) 1.3 H Vs1
7.80 x 5.38 x 3.39 (L/W 1.45)
depth = 63.0%
table = 61.0%
3)1.27 H VVS2
7.07 x 5.55 x 3.65 (L/W 1.27)
depth = 62%
table = 65.8%
I have read pretty much every thread I could find about ECs and it seems like all three have the potential to be nice stones. I also know that its important to look at them in person but I am nearly positive I will not get to look at more than one at a time. I believe I have to make my choice based on the numbers, and then reject it if I don''t like it. So, if you had to choose one sight unseen, which would you choose and why?
I have gone back and forth but so far I''m leaning towards #3 even though it faces up a tad smaller than my old stone. It seems like it has a much better cut (mine has one of those super large tables people warn about) and it''s a higher color and clarity. It also has a boxier look to it, which my other stone had and I really liked. I have no objections to changing shape/proportion but I am concerned that stone #2 might be a little on the long side even though it falls within the classic proportions.
I would welcome any and all thoughts. Thanks!!