|
|
|
|
| ||
Diamond Jewelry Forums
 Picture Gallery
 Video Gallery
 Journal
|
|||
|
|  Search
|  Posted Today
|  Most Active
|  Help
|
||
 »
Home
»  » Diamond Prices and Grading »
 » RockyTalky
»  » Whittled the list down to 2, which one will be the winner?
|
|
 |
Whittled the list down to 2, which one will be the winner? |
 |
| P: 8/25/2004 6:20:11 PM | |
bigbadbuff Rough Rock Total Posts: 21 Last Post: 9/29/2004 Member Since: 8/25/2004 |
#1 #2 I'm having trouble deciding between these 2. Both perform about the same in Virtual Model, lightscope, and bscope tests. The biggest difference is inclusions. The G VS1 has no visible inclusions from the top, as the cavity is only really visible from the girdle/bottom... but I don't know about the cavity aspect, I don't see that discussed often and it seems to be a rare inclusion. Anything wrong with the placement of this particular cavity to warrant concern? I admit I do like the idea of a cleaner stone, which this certainly is... lower in color (although it will be going in a platinum setting) but ex/ex for polish/symmetry. The F VS2 has some small inclusions in the table but they seem small and few for a VS2 rating. I like the idea of being in the colorless range and don't care about the inclusions here as they'd be eye clean I'm sure. vg/ex for polish/symmetry but I've read that matters little until you get into the higher end of clarity. Slightly better machine #s. Not sure what to use as the deciding factors here, what would you do? Thanks in advance... |
| Posted: 8/25/2004 6:20:11 PM | |
|
There are 8 replies to this message. There are 8 replies on this page. |
|
| P: 8/25/2004 7:01:26 PM | |
wonka27 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 628 Last Post: 9/13/2007 Member Since: 6/22/2004 |
Get a quarter out and flip a coin. I think each has its own merits/pitfalls, but the reality is, these are both FANTASTIC diamonds and looking for negatives about either is really splitting hairs. If I had to pick, I'd go with the F VS2. It would be cool to be in colorless, you shouldn't see those inclusions, and it has a 9.8 ISee2 score over a 9.5 ISee2 score for the G VS1. However, the plus of the GVS1 is better BScope score (esp. in scintillation) and even better clarity. I don't know what that inclusion is there on the VS1 - a very small chip or something - but the rest of that stone looks absolutely clean. Reality is, you can't loose with either of them, so congrats!!! 
|
| Posted: 8/25/2004 7:01:26 PM | |
| P: 8/25/2004 7:05:03 PM | |
reena Ideal Rock Total Posts: 2,531 Last Post: 8/22/2005 Member Since: 7/13/2004 |
don't know a thing about RBs but i say, all other things being equal, go F VS2!!! 
|
| Posted: 8/25/2004 7:05:03 PM | |
| P: 8/25/2004 8:51:26 PM | |
Lynn B Ideal Rock Total Posts: 5,143 Last Post: 11/23/2009 Member Since: 5/9/2004 |
Just me humble two cents... I agree w/ wonka... you can't go wrong with either one! But PERSONALLY, I'd choose #2 because I like the larger table. Lynn And THAT'S my story and I'm sticking to it! |
| Posted: 8/25/2004 8:51:26 PM | |
| P: 8/25/2004 9:10:56 PM | |
noobie Ideal Rock Total Posts: 1,318 Last Post: 9/21/2007 Member Since: 3/3/2004 |
I'd call Jonathan and ask him to look at them side by side and describe them to you and ask him if there is any discernable difference. If not, flip a coin or buy the combo you like best.
Lynn, what is it about a larger table that you prefer?
|
| Posted: 8/25/2004 9:10:56 PM | |
| P: 8/25/2004 9:29:34 PM | |
Todd07 Cut Rock Total Posts: 455 Last Post: 3/17/2005 Member Since: 8/17/2004 |
Tough call
 I'd pick the F VS2 - looks like it has better light return on the table when I compared lightscope images. When I got mine, I did what noobie suggested and had the vendor (Jonathan in your case) pull the stones and compare side by side.
Todd(aka Ricardo, aka Cowboy) |
| Posted: 8/25/2004 9:29:34 PM | |
| P: 8/25/2004 11:16:25 PM | |
quaeritur Ideal Rock Total Posts: 1,238 Last Post: 2/3/2005 Member Since: 3/12/2004 |
I vote F VS2. I like the F over G, the 9.8 ISee2 score, slightly more saturation in the red under the table, and the fact that it has an indented natural. I think it's cool to have a remnant of the rough on the cut stone -a little reminder that mother Nature made it. But those are personal prefs. These are both beautiful.
quaeritur |
| Posted: 8/25/2004 11:16:25 PM | |
| P: 8/26/2004 12:11:13 AM | |
strmrdr Ideal Rock Total Posts: 23,296 Last Post: 10/9/2009 Member Since: 11/1/2003 |
---------------- Thats what I would do too, ........... Karl has joined the diamond trade and is now posting as Karl_K |
| Posted: 8/26/2004 12:11:13 AM | |
| P: 8/26/2004 4:58:17 PM | |
|
Lynn B Ideal Rock Total Posts: 5,143 Last Post: 11/23/2009 Member Since: 5/9/2004 |
---------------- Gee, noob, I'm not sure... I just remember that when I was shopping for stones, one of them had a smaller table (53 or 54%, I think?)... and I remember distinctly that (while it was undeniably a beautiful stone) I just much preferred the look of a larger (56/57) table. I am sure there are technical arguments both ways regarding light return, fire, brilliance and scintilation  but I don't "know nuthin' " about that!  I only know that, personally, I like the look of a table that's a bit larger. Lynn And THAT'S my story and I'm sticking to it! |
| Posted: 8/26/2004 4:58:17 PM | |
 Previous Page
|
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
