shape
carat
color
clarity
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. PriceScope Upgrade Completed
    For issues, questions and comments click the link below
    https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pricescope-upgraded-comments-and-issues.229551/

    Dismiss Notice

Advise on 2 diamonds..thanks!

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by majupa611, Aug 16, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. majupa611
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    41
    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
  2. Ellen
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,459
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    by Ellen » Aug 16, 2007
    Other than price difference, anything else would be splitting hairs. Both will be stunning. [​IMG]
     
  3. diamondseeker2006
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    49,961
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    by diamondseeker2006 » Aug 16, 2007
    Both are beautiful..but I choose the 1.60!!!
     
  4. Ellen
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,459
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    by Ellen » Aug 16, 2007
    Why is that?
     
  5. pb
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    18
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    by pb » Aug 16, 2007
    I like the 1.603 carat one slightly better. If you look at the ideal scope and aset images, you can see that the one I picked is perfectly symmetrical all the way around as compared to the other one (which is really close). On the image below, I have an arrow pointing to an ever so slight lack of symmetery on the 1.575 carat stone (in the light scope image at top right). Also, if you compare the two ASET images (without my double yellow "circling" of the area I''m trying to point out), you''ll notice that the symmetry on the green area is better for the 1.603 stone. Plus, there''s less green in that same area. Also, in the very center of the ASET image, the 1.603 has more red in the dead center, whereas the 1.575 has more green by comparison.

    They''re both realllllllly nice stones though!!!

    That''s my 2 cents worth. :)

    myprefoftwostonesandwhy.jpg
     
  6. diamondseeker2006
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    49,961
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    by diamondseeker2006 » Aug 16, 2007
    Haha! I chose it because mine is 1.6 and it is bigger than the other!!!!!!!![​IMG]
     
  7. Ellen
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,459
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    by Ellen » Aug 17, 2007
    pb, the differences you pointed out could not be detected in real life. [​IMG]



    And ds, you and I could not see the difference in size between a 7.48 and a 7.51 if the Hope Diamond was on the line. [​IMG]
     
  8. majupa611
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    41
    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    by majupa611 » Aug 17, 2007
    thanks guys! I went w/ the 1.6 and i''m in the process of purchasing it. i''m freaking out! Its as though I forgot that one day I would actually make a purchase. thanks again.
     
  9. aljdewey
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    9,121
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2002
    by aljdewey » Aug 18, 2007
    Ellen, this is why you continue to be my hero [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  10. ayala_jessica
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    292
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    by ayala_jessica » Aug 18, 2007
    LOL....I am rolling on the floor....[​IMG]
     
  11. JohnQuixote
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    5,212
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2004
    by JohnQuixote » Aug 18, 2007

    It's true. It's also human nature to focus on the details we see, so I completely understand PB's approach. Just remember, unless you go see diamonds under jewelers' microscopes in the stores you'll never shop like this in "real life." On PS we get a bit spoiled by all of the high-mag images of quality diamonds from many sources.

    Small nuances in these zooms can be a function of tilt, light intensity, shadow, inclusions reflecting etc...especially in IS photos which are lit from beneath as well as the sides.H&A photos can have dark/pale areas caused by thickness differences in the filament paper.Photoreal images can show multiple reflections. These are often 6-8mm objects (measure how wide that is compared to the image on your screen) so it's like zooming into a beautiful runway model’s face until you can see the pores and their shadows. No problem doing that, just keep it ‘real.’ [​IMG]

    Something you might find interesting:In an ASET image the color in the eye (red or green) is a function of table reflection specific to this structured environment.It makes no visible difference IRL.
    See this 2005 thread for info. Cool stuff.
     
  12. diamondseeker2006
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    49,961
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    by diamondseeker2006 » Aug 18, 2007
    Nope, couldn''t see it at all! I couldn''t see the difference in these either, BUT, I''d rather have a 1.3 than a 1.27, I''d rather have a 1.5 over a 1.47, and I''d rather have a 2.0 than a 1.97...IF the cost was only $200 more. And in this case, I''d rather have a 1.60 over a 1.57 because it goes to the next tenth size range for a very small price difference when you are already in the $11,000 range.[​IMG]
     
  13. Jenn5504
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,166
    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    by Jenn5504 » Aug 24, 2007
    I''m with you Diamondseeker2006! ......my 1.59 drives me crazy, why can''t it just be an even 1.6?!?! [​IMG]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page