shape
carat
color
clarity

Help between two diamonds

august891

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
3
Hey guys,

My gf has a preference for a nice looking diamond that's hopefully 2ct. I don't want to skimp on quality either. I found these 2 diamonds and the 2ct is about $1,200 more expensive. I can deal with the price difference but I'm not sure about whether to move from a H color to an I color. Also, the depths and tables are so different and I'm not sure if that should be a deciding factor. Finally, both have strong blue fluorescence. Should that be a red flag? Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

Specs:
Carat: 1.74ct, Color: H, Clarity: VS2, Cut: Excellent
Depth: 59.8, Table: 60, Crown: 34.0deg, Pavilion: 40.8deg, Polish: Excellent, Symmetry: Excellent, Strong Blue Flourescence
HCA: 1.7 - Excellent, Light Return Excellent, Fire Very Good, Scintillation Very Good, Spread (or diameter for weight) Excellent

http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?pagename=GST%2FDispatcher&childpagename=GIA%2FPage%2FReportCheck&c=Page&cid=1355954554547&reportno=6202079089

VS

Carat: 2ct, Color: I, Clarity: VS2, Cut: Excellent
Depth: 62.9, Table: 54, Crown: 35.0deg, Pavilion: 40.6deg, Polish: Excellent, Symmetry: Very Good, Strong Blue Flourescence
HCA: 1 - Excellent, Light Return Excellent, Fire Excellent, Scintillation Excellent, Spread (or diameter for weight) Very Good

http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?pagename=GST%2FDispatcher&childpagename=GIA%2FPage%2FReportCheck&c=Page&cid=1355954554547&reportno=5193739992
 

solgen

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
563
The first one is a 60-60 diamond and they tend to have a certain look so you need to see if that appeals to you. The second is cut pretty deep and along with girdle thickness is hiding some weight. As for the strong flourescence, you need to make sure it doesn't negatively impact the stone by lending a milky or hazy appearance to the stone.
 

august891

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
3
solgen|1436225274|3899665 said:
The first one is a 60-60 diamond and they tend to have a certain look so you need to see if that appeals to you. The second is cut pretty deep and along with girdle thickness is hiding some weight. As for the strong flourescence, you need to make sure it doesn't negatively impact the stone by lending a milky or hazy appearance to the stone.

Thanks. Is it hiding weight a bad thing or is that also more of personal preference? I did notice that it was cut pretty deep and was concerned that the width/table is pretty small so it'd look smaller vs looking like a 2ct. I'll check when I pick it up to ensure it doesn't have a milky or hazy appearance although I'm not sure I have the eye to tell.
 

solgen

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
563
august891|1436231303|3899704 said:
solgen|1436225274|3899665 said:
The first one is a 60-60 diamond and they tend to have a certain look so you need to see if that appeals to you. The second is cut pretty deep and along with girdle thickness is hiding some weight. As for the strong flourescence, you need to make sure it doesn't negatively impact the stone by lending a milky or hazy appearance to the stone.

Thanks. Is it hiding weight a bad thing or is that also more of personal preference? I did notice that it was cut pretty deep and was concerned that the width/table is pretty small so it'd look smaller vs looking like a 2ct. I'll check when I pick it up to ensure it doesn't have a milky or hazy appearance although I'm not sure I have the eye to tell.

You pretty much summed it up with "so it'd look smaller vs looking like a 2ct". It's not a good thing but it's not necessarily a bad thing. It's not like some black inclusion under the table. It isn't really going to distract from the beauty of the stone.

Too see the flourescence you'd need a UV light. You could try taking it outside in the bright sunlight and see if it's milky or hazy. There's threads here of strong blue flouro so you an see what it looks like. Here's one of many: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/calling-all-florescence-experts.198989/#post-3735590']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/calling-all-florescence-experts.198989/#post-3735590[/URL]
 

JDDN

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
2,339
Usually people tend to want their diamonds to look as large as possible. So paying for a 2 carat that looks like a 1.9 carat isn't usually what people aspire to. That it's smaller for it's carat weight won't necessarily take away from it's beauty though.

Stone #2 has a smaller table and higher crown angle. It should have nice fire to it. The proportions are very nice.

Stone #1 has a very large table so it will be bright at the expense of fire.

They will have different "looks."

Can you keep looking? Also, you may be paying a small premium for a stone at 2 carats, as opposed to one that's 1.95 carats. Prices tend to jump at the whole and half carat marks.

And with strong blue fluorescence, please ask the vendor to verify that there is no milk/hazy affect on the stone.
 

august891

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
3
Thanks a lot guys. The vendor had contacted me about stone 1 and in their words:
"It is a completely eye clean diamond with excellent luster as well. The strong blue fluorescence does give the diamond a slight bluish hue, but does not affect the diamond in any way."

I'll contact them about stone 2's fluorescence.

The price on the 2 diamonds were really good I feel. Stone 1 cost $11,500 while stone 2 costs $12,800. Do you think I can do better at that price point?

Also, can you please comment on color H vs I? I'm not sure there's much of a difference but would I have to see the diamond to tell them apart?

Thanks
 

JDDN

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
2,339
You have two very different cut stones. The first stone is a 60/60 stone. It's a look and preference. You can look them up in the search bar on PS. They face up a bit larger and brighter, but they tend to lack fire or dispersion (color flashes).

The second stone has small table and higher crown which lends itself to more fire and dispersion. The two stones you posted have different looks to them. It's hard for us to "recommend" one over the other, as we cannot say what your GF will like more. I think you are being offered these stones at a fair price.

Same goes for color. Some individuals are very color sensitive and they will not like an I over an H. Others are not sensitive at all and won't be able to tell a difference. Then there's the whole high H, closer to a G or low I closer to a J, etc.….you get the picture. Is your GF color sensitive?

Strong blue fluorescence is also a preference, if she likes her diamond to look blue-ish. You just want to verify that there is no milky/haze affect and sounds like there isn't.
 

WinkHPD

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 3, 2001
Messages
7,516
august891|1436224752|3899662 said:
Hey guys,

My gf has a preference for a nice looking diamond that's hopefully 2ct. I don't want to skimp on quality either. I found these 2 diamonds and the 2ct is about $1,200 more expensive. I can deal with the price difference but I'm not sure about whether to move from a H color to an I color. Also, the depths and tables are so different and I'm not sure if that should be a deciding factor. Finally, both have strong blue fluorescence. Should that be a red flag? Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

Specs:
Carat: 1.74ct, Color: H, Clarity: VS2, Cut: Excellent
Depth: 59.8, Table: 60, Crown: 34.0deg, Pavilion: 40.8deg, Polish: Excellent, Symmetry: Excellent, Strong Blue Flourescence
HCA: 1.7 - Excellent, Light Return Excellent, Fire Very Good, Scintillation Very Good, Spread (or diameter for weight) Excellent

http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?pagename=GST%2FDispatcher&childpagename=GIA%2FPage%2FReportCheck&c=Page&cid=1355954554547&reportno=6202079089

VS

Carat: 2ct, Color: I, Clarity: VS2, Cut: Excellent
Depth: 62.9, Table: 54, Crown: 35.0deg, Pavilion: 40.6deg, Polish: Excellent, Symmetry: Very Good, Strong Blue Flourescence
HCA: 1 - Excellent, Light Return Excellent, Fire Excellent, Scintillation Excellent, Spread (or diameter for weight) Very Good

http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?pagename=GST%2FDispatcher&childpagename=GIA%2FPage%2FReportCheck&c=Page&cid=1355954554547&reportno=5193739992

Stone number one has the potential to get an AGS 0 light performance grade, depending on how the rounding is on the GIA report.

Stone number two has the potential to get an AGS 1 light performance grade depending on how the rounding is on the GIA report. Thus both are likely to look much better than many GIA XXX (Although the 2 ct is XXVG) This diamond was definitely cut to maintain the 2ct mark so that it could cost more.

Wink
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
58,547
Obviously not seeing any images of the stones, we are very limited in what we can say. Even though I am not wild about the depth on the 2 ct stone, it is priced very low, and it makes me wonder if there are negative effects of the fluorescence. If not, it is more for your money than the other one, as it is larger and hits the 2 ct mark. But again, if we could see them, we might easily eliminate one or the other.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top