Which is Better?

[7emp]

I have been a lurker for the past two weeks since my bf enlisted my help in the creation of my e-ring. We done many search on the web and came down to these two. Any inputs are greatly appreciated. Below are from GIA report:

1.27ct, G, VS1, ideal cut, symmetry/polish are both EX, depth 61.6%, table 56%, thin to medium girdle, Measurements: 6.95-6.98-4.29 . Inclusions: cloud

or

1.31ct, G, VS2, ideal cut, symmetry/polish are both EX, depth 61.7%, table 54%, thin to medium girdle, Measurements: 7.08-7.05-4.36 . Inclusions: needle and crystal

Should I trade off clarity one notch down for a bigger stone? Is the table % of 54 too small so therefore less brillance? Which type of inclusions are considered bad?

Thanks.

 

[lumpkin]

Strictly on paper I''d go with #1. It''s only four points smaller, which is negligible, it has better clarity and, most importantly, the table is within the ideal range. But you really need to see them to compare them, IMO. Either would be a nice diamond.

 

[strmrdr]

need more info to tell you anything.
Do you have the crown and pavilian angles?
Any images?

 

[7emp]

No images yet. What kind of images should I ask for? I have asked for the sarin reports already, but probably won''t get them until tomorrow.

 

[strmrdr]

ideal-scope images would be best.

 

[denverappraiser]

"Below are from GIA report:"

7emp,

GIA does not use the term 'ideal cut' on any of their reports. Do the reports that you are seeing include this comment?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[7emp]

Sorry for the confusions, the GIA report did not mention ideal cut - ideal cut came from the seller website.

 

[7emp]

got the sarin reports for both...why does the sarin rpt differ from the GIA rpt? Is this common. I'm starting to think that something is not quite right here.

For the 1.27ct, the sarin rpt has the following:

1.263ct
61.9% depth
56.9%depth
33.9 crown angle
41.2 pavillon angle

Plugging this to the HCA, it scored Very Good all across for Light Return, Fire, Scintillation and Spread. Total Visual Performance of 2.8

For the 1.31ct, the sarin reads:

1.327ct
62% depth
53.4%depth
35.2 crown angle
40.7 pavillon angle

Plugging this to the HCA, it scored Excellent for Light Return, Fire, Scintillation and Ver Good on Spread. Total Visual Performance of 1.5

How accurate is the HCA? Looking at the HCA results, the 1.31ct looks much more appealing even though it has small table %.

Please give opinions on which is better?

Thanks.

 

[belle]

the numbers are not that far off. between differences in machine calibrations and the published margin of error for sarin (which is .2) and perhaps some added rounding, the numbers are pretty much the same.

hca is is a useful tool for narrowing down stones and weeding out potential poor performers. if these stones are at all close in price, i would go with the second one. as far as the inclusions go, you won''t see them in either one with the naked eye.