Advise on 2 diamonds..thanks!
Click to view full-size image.
Related topics
|
|
|
|
I like the 1.603 carat one slightly better. If you look at the ideal scope and aset images, you can see that the one I picked is perfectly symmetrical all the way around as compared to the other one (which is really close). On the image below, I have an arrow pointing to an ever so slight lack of symmetery on the 1.575 carat stone (in the light scope image at top right). Also, if you compare the two ASET images (without my double yellow "circling" of the area I''m trying to point out), you''ll notice that the symmetry on the green area is better for the 1.603 stone. Plus, there''s less green in that same area. Also, in the very center of the ASET image, the 1.603 has more red in the dead center, whereas the 1.575 has more green by comparison.
They''re both realllllllly nice stones though!!! That''s my 2 cents worth. :)
|
|
|
|
|
It's true. It's also human nature to focus on the details we see, so I completely understand PB's approach. Just remember, unless you go see diamonds under jewelers' microscopes in the stores you'll never shop like this in "real life." On PS we get a bit spoiled by all of the high-mag images of quality diamonds from many sources. Small nuances in these zooms can be a function of tilt, light intensity, shadow, inclusions reflecting etc...especially in IS photos which are lit from beneath as well as the sides. H&A photos can have dark/pale areas caused by thickness differences in the filament paper. Photoreal images can show multiple reflections. These are often 6-8mm objects (measure how wide that is compared to the image on your screen) so it's like zooming into a beautiful runway model’s face until you can see the pores and their shadows. No problem doing that, just keep it ‘real.’  Something you might find interesting: In an ASET image the color in the eye (red or green) is a function of table reflection specific to this structured environment. It makes no visible difference IRL. See this 2005 thread for info. Cool stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Nope, couldn''t see it at all! I couldn''t see the difference in these either, BUT, I''d rather have a 1.3 than a 1.27, I''d rather have a 1.5 over a 1.47, and I''d rather have a 2.0 than a 1.97...IF the cost was only $200 more. And in this case, I''d rather have a 1.60 over a 1.57 because it goes to the next tenth size range for a very small price difference when you are already in the $11,000 range. 
|
|
|
|
|
I''m with you Diamondseeker2006! ......my 1.59 drives me crazy, why can''t it just be an even 1.6?!?! 
|
