|
|
|
|
They both look to be awesome stones... and I don't think you can go wrong with either one -- but for several reasons, I do like #2 better. I like the smaller table and the slightly shallower depth. But we are splitting frog's hairs here now! Although I wouldn't worry at all about the "I" color... the "F" will be whiter. Will that be noticeable to the naked eye once it is set? Maybe, maybe not! Is #2 eye-clean? If so, all things considered -- I vote for #2!
![]() Lynn |
|
|
|
|
Diamond #2:
http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-1292135.htm eta: Bob just emailed me and told me this diamond is not eye-clean. It looks eye-clean to me. Of course, I trust his eyes over mine, but is there something I'm not seeing? |
|
|
|
|
Yikes! Another diamond has been added to the mix.
Diamond #3 Item Code: GIA-12835697 Report: GIA Shape: Round Ideal Cut Carat: 0.82 Color: G Clarity: SI2 Depth: 60.9 Table: 55 Crown Angle: 34.5 Crown %: 15.8 Pavilion Angle: 40.9 Pavilion %: 43.2 Girdle: Thin Faceted Polish: Excellent Symmetry: Excellent Culet: None Fluorescence: No Measurements: 6.09-6.13X3.72 HCA Score: 1.4 Oh my. #1, #2, or #3.... |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it sure looks eye-clean to me, too! I think sometimes the conscientious vendors here on PS are almost "too hard" on their stones! And that''s OK... because I''d rather see someone pleasantly surprised than disappointed. If it were me, I think I''d have the stone shipped and look at it myself. But if you don''t want to bother with that, then go with #1. You really can''t lose here! Lynn |