What do you think of these IS?

[Kalliope]

Just posting the IS:

1:


2:


3:


4:

 

[pfunk]

No bad apples but i like #2

 

[ame]

We need more information than just an IS. Links to stones, etc.

 

[Kalliope]

1:
I VS2
GIA 3x excellent
Depth 61.6%
Table 56%
Pavilion Depth 43%
Pavilion Angle 40.6°
Crown Angle 35°
Crown Height 15.5%
Girdle thin-medium
Fluro faint
Inclusion Crystal
HCA: 0.8




2:
I VS2
GIA 3x excellent
Depth 60.7%
Table 57%
Pavilion Depth 43%
Pavilion Angle 40.6°
Crown Angle 34°
Crown Height 14.5%
Girdle medium-slightly thick
Fluro none
Inclusion Feather, Crystal
HCA: 0.6



3:
H VVS2
GIA 3x excellent
Depth 62%
Table 55%
Pavilion Depth 43%
Pavilion Angle 40.8°
Crown Angle 35°
Crown Height 16%
Girdle medium
Fluro none
Inclusion Pinpoint, Feather, Surface Graining
HCA: 1.6



4:

I VVS2
GIA 3x excellent
Depth 61%
Table 57%
Pavilion Depth 43.5%
Pavilion Angle 41°
Crown Angle 34°
Crown Height 14.5%
Girdle thin-medium
Fluro none
Inclusion Cloud, Pinpoint, Feather, Surface Graining
HCA: 1.4

 

[ecf8503]

They all look good - throw a dart? Have you seen them in person? Or are they held by a vendor?

Is it for an e-ring? Based on nothing but color and crown height/angles, I'd take the H, but that's just me. No right or wrong.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Same here, I'd take the H #3 if given a choice, but I would assume that stone is quite a bit more than an I VS2. So price would enter into the equation for me. Second choice would be #2. I would eliminate the other two because these two look the best to me.

 

[Niel]

I like the arrows of 3, as well as the small table. And my eyes often prefer 62 depths +.

 

[Gypsy]

#2 is my preference. #3 is nice as well.

 

[Kalliope]

Thanks everyone !

Have you seen them in person? Or are they held by a vendor?

Is it for an e-ring?

I'm buying online from abroad so I won't be able to see the stones in person. Yes, it's for my ering (doing the work for DBF ).

Same here, I'd take the H #3 if given a choice, but I would assume that stone is quite a bit more than an I VS2. So price would enter into the equation for me.

You're right, #3 is the smallest but most expensive. I also considered #4 as it is 400$ less than #3 although I find the picture less appealing than the other ones.

#3 does have surface graining, is that a problem?

Also, how will #2 and #3 differ in their appearance in RL? Will the arrows in #3 be much darker?

 

[Niel]

Surface graining for number 3 isn't an issue. Its hot very high clarity, it will be eye clean.

 

[ame]

I like #2 the best. You're not going to see the arrows like in these images in day to day life like that.

 

[Kalliope]

Thanks Niel and ame!

 

[pfunk]

I still prefer number 2 as well. You seem to be getting more bang for your buck, as I would guess it is cheaper than 3 and 4 but performs at least as well.

 

[Kalliope]

#4 is 300$ less than #2 so if it's a strong performer as well it would be the best value for money .

 

[Niel]

#4 is 300$ less than #2 so if it's a strong performer as well it would be the best value for money .

I think number 4 isn't quite as good as 2 or 3.

For me, small tables and fat arrows are my favorite and I will (and have) paid a tad bit more for them. When I was buying mine, I had a choice between a si1 or a vs1. Ideally I'd rather pay for an eye clean si1, but I paid the few hundred more as it had the other characteristics I valued most. I tell you this just becuase its an example of weighing your priorities and price. If price is most important, go for the cheaper. Honestly they are both lovely!

 

[ame]

Right but when you're overseas and concerned about eye cleanliness and the possibility of it not meeting your standards for such (most vendors base eye clean on a foot away face up only), the possibility of an SI1 not meeting your needs is daunting, bec returning that would be a nightmare.

 

[Niel]

Right but when you're overseas and concerned about eye cleanliness and the possibility of it not meeting your standards for such (most vendors base eye clean on a foot away face up only), the possibility of an SI1 not meeting your needs is daunting, bec returning that would be a nightmare.

Was this to me?

I wasn't sayingbl she should buy an si1. I was using a personal experience to say both are good opinions but offer different looks, so its a matter of balancing budget and preferred specs.

 

[Kalliope]

#2 is my favourite as it's a nice size at a decent price. As I am selecting some stones for DBF to choose from I don't want to go too high up in price (though he would even buy me the classic Tiffany for a lot more if I wanted one). So I guess I'll show him #4 as a " budget friendly" alternative .

ame,

You're right. Unfortunately I can see inclusions very easily, so I have chosen only VS2 or higher clarity.

 

[ame]

Right but when you're overseas and concerned about eye cleanliness and the possibility of it not meeting your standards for such (most vendors base eye clean on a foot away face up only), the possibility of an SI1 not meeting your needs is daunting, bec returning that would be a nightmare.

Was this to me?

I wasn't sayingbl she should buy an si1. I was using a personal experience to say both are good opinions but offer different looks, so its a matter of balancing budget and preferred specs.

It was in response to the comment about the SI1 being a better balance of specs for price. So I guess to your comment, yes

 

[ame]

#2 is my favourite as it's a nice size at a decent price. As I am selecting some stones for DBF to choose from I don't want to go too high up in price (though he would even buy me the classic Tiffany for a lot more if I wanted one). So I guess I'll show him #4 as a " budget friendly" alternative .

ame,

You're right. Unfortunately I can see inclusions very easily, so I have chosen only VS2 or higher clarity.

Have you seen inclusions in stones of this cut quality or are you basing that on these images? Because these images are at 40x magnification.

 

[Niel]

Right but when you're overseas and concerned about eye cleanliness and the possibility of it not meeting your standards for such (most vendors base eye clean on a foot away face up only), the possibility of an SI1 not meeting your needs is daunting, bec returning that would be a nightmare.

Was this to me?

I wasn't sayingbl she should buy an si1. I was using a personal experience to say both are good opinions but offer different looks, so its a matter of balancing budget and preferred specs.

It was in response to the comment about the SI1 being a better balance of specs for price. So I guess to your comment, yes

Oh OK. I didn't say that. I said ideally I'd rather . I was just giving a personal example of how I chose specific specs I preferred over something a tad more budget friendly. That's all

 

[Kalliope]

Have you seen inclusions in stones of this cut quality or are you basing that on these images? Because these images are at 40x magnification.

I have seen SI1s that were ok from the top but I didn't like from the side. Also eye clean from a foot (it's like 30cm, right?) away would not meet my standards I think.

It's hard to say as I haven't seen that much diamonds in RL, especially not well cut or GIA graded diamonds. That's why I trust you guys to guide me trough the whole process .

 

[Kalliope]

Soooo, I'm back and incredibly happy to show you my engagement ring (well, actually it's just the diamond for now, I'll pick the setting myself)- DBF proposed yesterday ! He didn't go for one of the stones that I selected (he wasn't happy about the colour though I told him an H or I would be perfectly fine). However, it's a 0.65ct F VS2 BN Sig Ideal, the HCA is 2.6, AGA/NAJA 1B. DBF was concerned that I'd be disappointed because of the HCA but I have to say that this is the most gorgeous RB that I have ever seen in RL and I love it !! Here are some pics and I will start a SMTB thread once the stone is set.

Thanks so much for your help !