2 diamonds...your thoughts...

[treepop]

Weight: .765 cts
Measurements 5.83-5.85 x 3.64 mm
Cut grade AGS Ideal 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Proportions: Ideal
Color Grade: Ags 1.5 (G)
Clarity Grade AGS 4 (VS2)
Culet: Pointed
Faceted 1.3%(could be 1.5 hard to read) to 2.4%
crown: 35.2
pav: 41
depth:62.3%
table: 56%
Price = $3,257.00

weight: .72
Measurements 5.75 x 5.77 x3.55 mm
Cut grade AGS Ideal 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Proportions: Ideal
Color Grade: Ags 1.0 (F)
Clarity Grade AGS 4 (VS2)
Culet: Pointed
Faceted 1.4%to 3.6%
crown: 34.7
pav: 40.7
depth:61.6%
table: 56%
Price = $3,292.00

 

[treepop]

the more I talk to people at the work place and just people in general; the more I feel it is more important to have a larger diamond of lesser quality. So really my ideal stone would be one of VG vg/vg (I am told there really is no difference to the eye between id ex and vg)colorless to the eye and as big as possible for $3,000.


As you can see the 2 diamonds I linked are both ideal quality...it seems that I have found for just $200 more I get a lot more quality while $200 gets me VERY little in size.

Am I just not looking hard enough? Or is that just the way it is?

 

[Sundial]

They both look like nice stones, but I prefer the numbers on the second one. Whatever you do, don't skimp on cut quality because that is what makes the diamond beautiful. You could go down a little in color or clarity if you want to get a slightly bigger stone for the money.

 

[belle]

i guess it depends on what you are considering ''lesser quality''. i would not hesitate going down in color/clarity since that is not what effects the performance of the diamond whereas a poorly cut diamond (of lesser quality) will just look like crap no matter what the color/clarity is. if size is your priority, at least make the cut quality next. then perhaps color/clarity. no one wants to see a big dud.

 

[Dancing Fire]

just going by the #''s. i like #2 .

 

[treepop]

really....hrmm...so you guys don''t think #1 is gunna look any bigger?

What about the girdle on #2? it looks like that would be considerd I think thick? right? Is there a link to what % = what thickness for the girdle?

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/25/2006 8:40:49 PM
Author: treepop
really....hrmm...so you guys don't think #1 is gunna look any bigger?


What about the girdle on #2? it looks like that would be considerd I think thick? right? Is there a link to what % = what thickness for the girdle?

The first one has a slightly bigger spread, but the angles don't go well together. If you have a 41 PA, you need a much shallower CA (34ish, and even shallower)to compliment it. And vice versa for the CA.

And yes, the girdle on the second one is thicker, but everything else looks good.

ETA You can always keep looking, lots of good diamonds out there!