Another plea for input on a couple of stones

[dfb]

Admitted novice here - upgrading my wifes 11 year old ering - here are 3 stones I am 'thinking' about - and would like your brutally honest inputs please - there is a $3000 difference between as a group - so please take a look and let me know what you think and how you would rate them first to worst and why - they are all GIA certs - thanks

I am getting an ideal scope image of each - but do not have that yet - dont be shy about telling me scrap this grouping and keep looking - we really want something that will have great sparkle and scintillation and fire - she has been great about not having the best setting for 10 years - and now I want to get her something she will really love for the next 40 years

*************************************
Stone 1
RB
7.62x7.64x4.76
1.7 tcw
H/VS2
cut grade - EX
depth - 62.4
table - 55
crown angle - 35
pavillion angle - 40.8
girdle - med to slightly thick faceted
culet - none
Polish - EX
Symmetry - EX
Fluoro - MB
Comments - additional clouds not shown

HCA = 1.6

**************************************

Stone 2
RB
7.69x7.73x4.74
1.7 tcw
H/VS1
cut grade - EX
depth - 61.5
table - 55
crown - 34.5
pavillion - 40.8
girdle - medium faceted
culet - none
polish - EX
symmetry - EX
Fluoro - none
Comments - none

HCA = 1.3

**************************************************
Stone 3
RB
7.60x7.68x4.76
1.73 tcw
H/SI1 (note - high SI1 - very eye clean)
cut grade - EX
depth - 62.3
table - 57
crown - 35.5
pavillion - 40.8
girdle - thin to slightly thick faceted
culet - none
polish - EX
symmetry - EX
Fluoro - none
Comments - Clarity grade is based on clouds that are not shown

HCA = 2.5

 

[JulieN]

We might as well wait for the Ideal Scopes.

 

[pricescope]

personally, i''d choose the cheapest one (?#3?)

 

[dfb]

Looks like I will only be getting ideal scopes on stones 1 & 2 - probably will not get it on #3 - so any opinions from the stats is appreciated - I will certainly post whatever I get on the ideal scopes

Stone 1 is actually the cheapest

Stone 2 the most expensive

Stone 3 falling in the middle of the pack - I thought 3 would have been the cheapest too (maybe it is just over priced)

there is about $3000 difference between Stone 1 and 2 - guessing that is a combination of the one clarity grade - and the med blue fluoro - but I really have no idea

I am told on initial visual inspection Stone 2 is a bit better cut (though both get GIA excellent) - and of course Stone 2 is a clairty grade higher

 

[strmrdr]

what is the price on the stones?

 

[pricescope]

then #1 sounds like a good candidate. med blue fluoro can be quite nice and add a character. Ask your vendor to eyeball them for you and tell the reason of price difference between #1 and #3.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/24/2007 9:19:29 AM
Author: dfb
Looks like I will only be getting ideal scopes on stones 1 & 2 - probably will not get it on #3 - so any opinions from the stats is appreciated - I will certainly post whatever I get on the ideal scopes

Stone 1 is actually the cheapest

Stone 2 the most expensive

Stone 3 falling in the middle of the pack - I thought 3 would have been the cheapest too (maybe it is just over priced)

there is about $3000 difference between Stone 1 and 2 - guessing that is a combination of the one clarity grade - and the med blue fluoro - but I really have no idea

I am told on initial visual inspection Stone 2 is a bit better cut (though both get GIA excellent) - and of course Stone 2 is a clairty grade higher

Stone #3 faces up a wee bit small:A 1.73 with those angles and a medium girdle (GIA) would spread appx 7.78 mm.The clarity comment bears investigation.If the SI1 was based exclusively on clouds it could be very eye-clean; just make sure transparency is not hindered.If that was the case we’d expect it to be graded SI2, but the question is reasonable.

Cut:I’m with Julie; wait for the ideal-scopes.

In technical terms, both #1 and #2 have ‘near-Tolkowsky’ proportions.#2 has a couple of numbers ‘nearer’ Tolk, but if all else is equal they should perform with the same level of appeal.The VS2 and med fluorescence bring the price of #1 down with no visible sacrifice.It may be your best bang for the buck.

 

[dfb]

thanks SO MUCH for you all taking the time to offer your valued opinions - I hope to get the ideal scopes of stone 1 and 2 over the weekend or early next week - when I do I will post them and then see what the thoughts are in terms if is there a real $3000 difference between the two in terms of performance - thanks again -

 

[kcoursolle]

number one and three are a little deeper than I would like.

 

[dfb]

here is the ideal scope of Stone 2

 

[dfb]

and stone 1

you guys see any big difference between the two

 

[JulieN]

Stone 1 is slightly painted. Both have excellent IS....can't go wrong with one of them. I think the H VS2 would be fine.

 

[dfb]

Thanks Julie - what do you mean when you say stone 1 is slighted painted?

 

[JulieN]

Good place to start: http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/45/1/Visible-Effects-of-Painting--Digging-on-Superideal-Diamonds.aspx

 

[Ellen]

I agree, both are gonna be beautiful!

 

[dfb]

Thanks for the link Julie - I read the article - most of it was over my uninformed head - but I got the gist - seems like it can be a bad thing - or not a bad thing if it is only crown - and within certain parameters to enhance performance of an ideal cut - from what I can tell - seems to be a bigger issue if done to perserve weight - or to in the case of digging to remove an inclusion for a higher clarity grade - guess I am at the point to get a look at the stone and make the call from there - it is amazing to me you guys can quickly look at an ideal scope and pick up those small variations and what they mean (at least they seem small to my eye) - I appreciate the expert advice - I am assuming since the GIA grade was still EX - as was the polish and sym on the cert that whatever painting is there was not to the degree it impacted performance and ultimate grading