vandelay101
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2003
- Messages
- 48
Hey guys...
I realize when dealing with princess cuts it''s best to judge with a side by side comparison. However just for the sake of argument, I have two stones I''m looking at, little difference in price. Based on numbers alone which do you think would be the better stone.
Princess .54ct, G, vvs1, depth% 70, table%68, floure none, girdle is medium to slightly thick.
Dimensions: 4.59x4.50x3.15
OR
Princess .58ct, G, VVs2, depth 69%, table 70%, floure none, girdle is thin to medium.
Dimensions:4.65x4.55x3.14
I wish I knew the crown height%, but these are both GIA stones. The smaller stone is around $150 cheaper. Is this due to the clarity, because they both have good enough clarity for me, but I prefer a larger stone. I heard it is best to have a table less than the depth of the stone, however this is not true for the larger stone. The table and depth are pretty equal.
Thanks,
Robert O.
I realize when dealing with princess cuts it''s best to judge with a side by side comparison. However just for the sake of argument, I have two stones I''m looking at, little difference in price. Based on numbers alone which do you think would be the better stone.
Princess .54ct, G, vvs1, depth% 70, table%68, floure none, girdle is medium to slightly thick.
Dimensions: 4.59x4.50x3.15
OR
Princess .58ct, G, VVs2, depth 69%, table 70%, floure none, girdle is thin to medium.
Dimensions:4.65x4.55x3.14
I wish I knew the crown height%, but these are both GIA stones. The smaller stone is around $150 cheaper. Is this due to the clarity, because they both have good enough clarity for me, but I prefer a larger stone. I heard it is best to have a table less than the depth of the stone, however this is not true for the larger stone. The table and depth are pretty equal.
Thanks,
Robert O.
300x240.png)