#1 or #2

[Raffi]

Hello,
I''ve decided to purchase one of these diamonds. This question may seem silly, since they are almost identical by the numbers, but I''m curious which one other people would choose and why. They are both asscher cut(sq.emeralds), and I''ve been assured that #2 is "eye-clean". I appreciate anyone''s opinions.

#1
Carat weight: 1.22
Cut: Very Good
Color: H
Clarity: VS2
Depth %: 67.1%
Table %: 61%
Symmetry: Very good
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Slightly thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 5.99x5.99x4.02 mm
Length/width ratio: 1.00
Crown Height: 17.6%
Pavil. Depth: 46.2%
Girdle Th.: 1.8%


#2
Carat weight: 1.22
Cut: Very Good
Color: H
Clarity: SI1
Depth %: 68.2%
Table %: 59%
Symmetry: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Slightly thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 5.96x5.95x4.06 mm
Length/width ratio: 1.00
Crown Angle: 43.9
Crown Height: 17.2%
Pavil. Angle: 53.2
Pavil. Depth: 47.7%
Girdle Th.: 3.7%

 

[fuffi]

Assuming that both are equally brilliant and visually exciting, I would lean towards #1 for two reasons; the ever so slightly better spread (though realistically you'd probably never notice it) and because I'd prefer to have a higher clarity stone.

 

[Mara]

How is it that they are both slightly thick girdles but one is 3.7 and one is 1.8?




Did you run them through the AGA DIY Cut Grader at www.gemappraisers.com? Try doing that...I think an Asscher falls under Emerald for those chart purposes.

 

[Raffi]

Thanks for your opinion Fuffi.

 

[Raffi]

Mara,
I thought the same thing when I saw the difference in girdle thickness, but that's what the Sarin report says. I'll try the cut grader, but from what I've read it seems that a well cut "asscher" should not have the same dimensions as a good emerald cut. I keep reading that a real Asscher cut diamond is quite deep with a high crown and a small table, and I didn't think that an emerald cut was supposed to have these characteristics. Let me know if you've heard differently. Thanks

 

[fuffi]

It doesn't seem like there's much info around regarding what makes a good asscher cut, but I know a good one when I see it. After spending yesterday browsing around 47th street in NYC I am convinced that you need to judge a fancy cut with your own eyes.

Good luck and let us know what you choose.

 

[Hest88]

Well, if these are our only two choices I'd go for #1--unless #2 is significantly cheaper.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

They both could be gorgeous. Is there any way you can get both shipped in to you to view side-by-side?

All questions would disappear then. You would be drawn to one over the other.

 

[Giangi]

They both look great.

BTW 3.7% is Thick. 1.8% is slightly thick.

 

[Raffi]

Thank you all so much for your advice and opinions. Since it's Thanksgiving day, I'd like to express how thankful I am that I came across this site. Everyone has been so nice and helpful, and having access to such a wealth of knowledge has made me much more comfortable with making such a big decision. THANK YOU to everyone who has responded to my questions, and thanks in advance for answering the questions I haven't asked yet.