|
|
|
|
| ||
Diamond Jewelry Forums
 Picture Gallery
 Video Gallery
 Journal
|
|||
|
|  Search
|  Posted Today
|  Most Active
|  Help
|
||
 »
Home
»  » Diamond Prices and Grading »
 » RockyTalky
»  » one last plea for help =)
|
|
 |
one last plea for help =) |
 |
| P: 11/29/2002 2:25:08 PM | |
TSNARE Rough Rock Total Posts: 18 Last Post: 12/22/2002 Member Since: 11/9/2002 |
OK, I posted a few weeks ago asking for advice on some diamonds I was choosing between. Due to my schedule, I had to extend my shopping period a bit longer. I'm now left with three stones to choose from. I'm sorry to bother everyone yet again, but I'd love it if anyone can offer an opinion, since I'd like to make my final decision by tomorrow (!!!) Option 1: 0.9 ct VS2 I color 61.4% depth 57.0% table Sarin report places table, crown, and PD in 0-0-0 range v.good polish v.good symmetry no fluor $3400 Option 2: 0.9 ct SI1 H color 62.9% depth 58.0% table v.good polish v.good symmetry no fluor OGI report: crown ang = 35.9 pav depth = 44.3% $3300 Option 3: 0.85 ct VS2 G color 61% depth 56% table v.good polish v.good symmetry med blue fluorescence $3500 including setting So here's the deal. In terms of cut quality, option 1 seems the clear best, but the I color bothers me. Option 2 is deep and overall doesn't score too well on the HCA, I guess, but for whatever reason, it seemed beautiful when I looked at it by eye. And the H color is something I feel more comfortable with. Likewise, I dunno why, but the option 1 stone didn't look that spectacular to me by eye when I looked at it in person. Sounds weird, I know, but I think this is all true. Option 3 is beginning to tempt me and here's why. First of all, from what I remember, it looked really nice by eye. There are two catches: it is already set, and it has the med. blue fluorescence. The setting is both a plus and minus. I dunno if I can get an OGI or Sarin since it is set... further, I don't think I have enough time anyway; I need the ring soon. However, I think the price is good because the setting it includes is a gorgeous platinum setting with baguettes. That setting at this jeweler normally goes for $650. But the jeweler himself says that the problem with the stone is probably its flurescence. He said it may make it look a bit cloudy. But I've read here that fluorescence can be an advantage with some stones in the H-I range. What about with this G stone? I'm just kind of frustrated and confused. Anybody have some help to give? P.S. - I think my gf would prefer baguettes or some alternative to the traditional solitaire. I can't ask her explicitly b/c this is supposed to be a surprise... but she has said things in the past that have hinted she might want something other than a plain solitaire. |
| Posted: 11/29/2002 2:25:08 PM | |
|
There are 5 replies to this message. There are 5 replies on this page. |
|
| P: 11/29/2002 5:10:40 PM | |
student Cut Rock Total Posts: 167 Last Post: 5/31/2003 Member Since: 9/2/2002 |
It's tough to say without having the seen the stones like you have, but option 3 sounds pretty good to me. Just a personal opinion from another consumer. I like the good color and clarity, and if you like the setting it's in, then you've hit two birds with one stone. |
| Posted: 11/29/2002 5:10:40 PM | |
| P: 11/29/2002 8:13:49 PM | |
sans Rough Rock Total Posts: 15 Last Post: 12/20/2002 Member Since: 10/29/2002 |
Definately option 3 - I've never known of a *medium* blue fluorescence causing a milky look. It takes very strong blue to do that, and they glow oddly. In fact, I have a strong blue .73 ideal cut that is totally transparent, no milky look at all, but it glows like neon under a black light. No. 3 isn't so deep as the others and the table is a better size, smaller, which gives more fire. VS is good. As a female, I'd be disappointed in anyting lower, but I'm a bit of an inclusionphobe. Even though it's less carat weight, the depth is less, so it probably looks as large as the deeper stones -- although it is not "spread" by any means. Good luck on the decision. sans |
| Posted: 11/29/2002 8:13:49 PM | |
| P: 11/29/2002 8:19:10 PM | |
|
sans Rough Rock Total Posts: 15 Last Post: 12/20/2002 Member Since: 10/29/2002 |
Tsnare, An extra thought on No. 3 -- if there's no GIA report on it, due to the lower price and its being already set, the jeweler could be "hiding" an inclusion under a prong. Offer to pay a small fee to have the diamond unset and look at in the microscope. Also, without a GIA or AGS certificate, many store jewelers will exaggerage the color and clarity. Beware. If there's a GIA report, you may be confident of color and clarity. |
| Posted: 11/29/2002 8:19:10 PM | |
| P: 11/29/2002 8:19:30 PM | |
enibas Rough Rock Total Posts: 58 Last Post: 6/10/2003 Member Since: 11/18/2002 |
as a chick who's just learning about diamonds and such, i think you shoudl go for choice 2? that med blue fluores scares me?  ...of course make sure it's "clean" to the naked eye. and forget choice 1, esp if yuo want to set it in platinum. can you get choice 2 with the baguettes? if not, i guess go with chocie 3...good luck! 
|
| Posted: 11/29/2002 8:19:30 PM | |
| P: 12/1/2002 11:51:45 AM | |
fire&ice Ideal Rock Total Posts: 7,827 Last Post: 3/30/2009 Member Since: 7/22/2002 |
I would go option 3 if: 1. the stone is certed (or can be evaluted by an independent appraiser. 2. You are able to view the stone in sunlight & determine the fluor. doesn't look oily in sunlight. Most likely, it will not. ...I love baguette side stones & blue fluor (my stone & ring having both)!
|
| Posted: 12/1/2002 11:51:45 AM | |
 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
