![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
| Diamond Jewelry Forums
|
|||
|
| |
||
» Diamond Prices and Grading »
» RockyTalky
» |
|
![]() |
HELP! Newbie requesting advice - need to buy within 1 week |
![]() |
| P: 4/13/2004 4:54:10 PM | |
airick75 Rough Rock Total Posts: 3 Last Post: 4/13/2004 Member Since: 4/6/2004 |
Help! I'm a newbie and deciding on the following 2 diamonds. I got all the specs from the jewelers finally. And both are GIA certified. Now, I need to make a decision within a week so I can propose! My honey's most important criteria is the cut. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks! Price: $6950 Weight: 1.232ct Diameter: 6.88mm - 6.96mm Total depth: 61.3% (4.24mm) Crown angle: 34.5' Crown height: 14.6% Pavil angle: 40.7' Pavil depth: 42.9% Culet: 0.3% (very small) Table size: 56% (3.88mm) Girdle thickness: 1.7% medium Polish/Symmetry: Excellent/Excellent Clarity: VS2 Color: H Fluorescence: none -------------------------------------------- Price: $6500 Weight: 1.351ct Diameter: 7.21mm - 7.25mm Total depth: 59.3% (4.29mm) Crown angle: 34.5' Crown height: 13.8% Pavil angle: 40.7' Pavil depth: 43.0% Culet: 0.7% (very small) Table size: 58.1% (4.20mm) Girdle thickness: 1.1% thin to medium Polish/Symmetry: Excellent/Excellent Clarity: VS2 Color: I Fluorescence: none |
| Posted: 4/13/2004 4:54:10 PM | |
![]() |
There are 2 replies to this message. There are 2 replies on this page. |
![]() |
| P: 4/13/2004 5:02:45 PM | |
|
Nicrez Ideal Rock Total Posts: 3,230 Last Post: 10/21/2009 Member Since: 1/21/2004 |
Alright the first one scores a 1 - Excellent within TIC range on the Holloway Cut Advisor Light return, Excellent Fire, Excellent Scintilliation, Excellent Spread, Very good I think it's the 56% table that if it was a 57%, it would be at it's most efficient. This stone still sounds lovely and in excellent proportions, regardless. The second stone is LARGER and LOOKS larger. It scores even better on the HCA, as a 1 - Excellent within TIC range Light return is Excellent Fire is Excellent Scintillation is Excellent Spread is Excellent Proportionally, the first one seems more on-key, but the second one is quite a nice stone, especially because it's spread is greater, making it LOOK larger, and because it IS larger... And the kicker....it's bigger looking, more carat weight AND it's cheaper! If you can get size, without comprosing quality (in fact getting a better performing stone), I say its a win-win!!! I VOTE #2!!!! That's just my $.02, they are both lovely stones and excellent in my opinion!!! The I will face up white, no problem, in my book. I don't think that should be an issue, as they are bothw ell cut. Good luck and congrats!!! "Sometimes it's OK to throw rocks at girls...as long as they sparkle! |
| Posted: 4/13/2004 5:02:45 PM | |
| P: 4/13/2004 5:28:07 PM | |
|
aljdewey Ideal Rock Total Posts: 8,236 Last Post: 2/11/2008 Member Since: 11/25/2002 |
Well, both look to be AMAZING stones.....but technically, Stone #2 does not meet "AGS 0" proportions....the table falls just outside that range. (AGS 0 proportion tables are 52.5 to 57.5).
Honestly, your budget would accommodate either of these stones and you can afford either choice, I'd spend the few hundred more and get the H. I've found that I personally begin to see the tint in I stones.
If size was your main criteria, Stone #2 measures much larger. I personally would rather have better color than slightly bigger, but that's me. If I were making the choice based just on the paper....I'd go with Stone #1. It's better color and it's truly an AGS 0 stone.
Are both of these available through the same vendor? If so, ask your vendor to compare both and tell you what he thinks. If they are at a B&M store, which appeals more to your eye?
_____________________ |
| Posted: 4/13/2004 5:28:07 PM | |
|
|
Next Page |
Contact Us | Back Home | Privacy Statement | Forum Agreement | Forum Policies | |
| Ideal BB Version: 0.1.5.4.beta1 | Message forum software powered by the Ideal BB |
Pricescope -
Knowledge -
Diamond Prices -
Tools -
Resources -
About
© 2000-2009 Pricescope. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Disclaimer
forum archives