2 Regents - Need opinions

[losi999]

Here are a two Regents that I''m considering so I wanted some opinions from you guys. Attached are the two links from GOG. They should be very equivalent in price. Thanks for the opinions!

http://www.goodoldgold.com/regent_143_h_si2.htm
Carat: 1.43
Clarity: SI2
Color: H
Shape: Modified Square (Regent Cut)
Cut External
Polish: GIA ~ Excellent
Symmetry: GIA ~ Good
Cut Internal
Symmetry ~ Hearts & Arrows
Light Return ~ Excellent

http://www.goodoldgold.com/regent_150_i_si2.htm
Carat: 1.50
Clarity: SI2
Color: I
Shape: Modified Square (Regent Cut)
Cut External
Polish: GIA ~ Excellent
Symmetry: GIA ~ Very Good
Cut Internal
Symmetry ~ Hearts & Arrows
Light Return ~ Excellent

 

[limey]

I like the first one more. One grade higher color, inclusions are out of the way and B'scope for colored light and scint are off the charts. Do you have pricing yet? There might be a premium for the magical 1.5ct mark making the H 1.43 an even better deal. The .05 mm difference in spread makes them very close in apparant size too.

Finally, ask Jonathan or one of his amazing staff to look at the stones with you on the phone and get their opinion! Tell him the crazy Limey dude says Hi.

 

[Giangi]

Mmmh, though choice. They are both nice looking SI 2's and with such a beautiful make H and I should face up really great. My final choice would be #2, simply because inclusions do not break the surface in this one.

 

[losi999]

anyone else have opinions about these two stones?? Thanks again!!

 

[valeria101]

Both are great H is cleaner - easy enough

The cut of these is so darn close... they'd make a nice pair.

You may want to ask for an explanation about THIS representation of inclusions. I definitely like those phenomena off the table and out of sight, but not if the stone may end up multiplied by mild impact... For my own sake, I would not worry about a vail compromising the stone's integrity, but this is not for me

 

[valeria101]

However, his pictures present the H-SI as a VS2 with a birthmark (since most of the stone does not present noticeable inclusions under magnification) while the other stone has inclusions spread almost accross the board and more visible.

Maybe I should not have trashed Jonathan's display like this...

 

[losi999]

yeah both of these seem very close, Jonathan said that either choice would be a winner.....to close to call in his words! I was a bit concerned about the inclusions on the 1.5ct stone being over the entire spread, but Jonathan has assured me that it is eye clean. About the comment indicating that the inclusions on the 1.45ct stone breaking the surface, how can you tell that? Valeria...is that why you addressed the stone possibly being compromised by slight impact? Thanks for helpin' out a rookie!!

 

[limey]

Ask GOG if the inclusions break the surface. Have you seen H vs I in person at a local store. If it is that close then go with lowest price!! Good luck.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 5/7/2004 11:01:44 PM losi999 wrote:



About the comment indicating that the inclusions on the 1.45ct stone breaking the surface, how can you tell that? Valeria...is that why you addressed the stone possibly being compromised by slight impact?

----------------

It is generally a safer bet to avoid stones with feathers (meaning internal, healed breaks in the crystal lattice) that either break the surface of the stone or cross a large part of the thickness of the piece at some point (and this could happen in SI2 where the diamond gets thinner - esp. near the girdle). If the "cross section" feather gets through the stone elsewhere, it's size would spell I1 or worse...

It is assumed that these inclusions represent the weakest point in the stone, so the most likely line of breakage at impact. However, these pieces have already been cut - and you'd need some unusual event to replicate the kind of pressure a stone is submitted to during cutting and polishing. All in all... this is all about extra safety measures and more of an aesthetic choice: one may not want to see a gash (= inclusion breaking surface) in the stone even under the loupe !

The H seems a particularly clean SI2 - and everyone likes those stones for the good value they represent. The look of the respective inclusion (down my link) looked intriguing (twinning plane?, strain?)- but not like the respective feathers (typically a jagged web of breaks, not an even blurred plane) that have bad reputation when crossing the stone.


If both stones are eye-clean all this is theory. I wish Jonathan would find time to chime in somewhere about the inclusion in the H-SI, even if those are his stones...

 

[valeria101]

BTW... the 'slight' impact needed to break a diamond means what a heavy iron blade does to a crystal held by a vice

( = cleaving).