assistance?-can''t decide

[decisions242]

Hi all,

Could really use some input.

Two stones appearing virtually identical on inspection to the naked eye. Both are rounds for an upcoming engagement ring. Size of primary importance in my decision within reasonable range of quality. Here are the stones:

****First Stone (GIA):
Ideal proportions
2.42 ct.
J VS2 (despite the J certified color, the stone appears exactly the same color as the I stone below)
Good Polish, Good Symettry
No Fluorescence

****Second Stone (GIA):
Ideal proportions
2.51 ct. (but diameter is actually a millimeter or two larger on the 2.42 ct. stone)
I SI2 (one inclusion not really visible to the naked eye, the other is on the periphery and will likely fall at the edge of a mounting prong)
Very good Polish, Very good Symettry
Medium Blue Fluroscense (none seen in outside light)


Overall, doubt the inclusions in the SI2 stone will make a difference to the lady as they are truly tiny and only noticeable if you were to manipulate the stone five different ways and were searching for it. What do you all think about the flourescing I vs. the VS2 J though? Many thanks for taking a moment to consider!

 

[strmrdr]

If they look the same buy the cheaper one.

There isnt enough information there to tell you much about them.
The crown and pavillian angles would be best but the depth and diameter would help.

 

[decisions242]

I wish I had copies of the certificates with me. The 2.42 struck me from the start as with a slightly steeper crown angle. Hence the reason for the slightly larger diameter if my novice interpretation is correct

 

[diamonddoll]

I'd realy check to be sure you personally can't see the inclusions in the SI2. Or if you can that they can be covered with a prong.

 

[decisions242]

RE: the SI2, I can barely make out the inclusion at the periphery. Once mounted, think that the prong actually will NOT cover the inclusion. It is tiny and likely unnoticeable to those who would look though. To her however, once I point it out (or she notices it), she might come to like it (birthmark effect) or it might bother her. On the other hand, should I regard the medium blue fluorescence of the stone as kind of a color booster compared to the J color (a great J nevertheless). Thanks.

 

[Magnum]

First of all, I'm assuming you meant that the first (smaller carat weight) stone is .1 or .2 mm bigger, and not 1 or 2 mm, as you said. 1 mm is huge. Secondly, it appears to me that the first stone has the edge from the information you gave. According to what you said, the color difference is imperceptible, so that's a wash, but the first stone is slightly bigger, and there's no question on the clarity of the first stone, which to me, puts it slightly ahead of the second. Unfortunately, you didn't give any cut information to comment on (other than that the first stone has a larger diameter, which is likely because it has a smaller depth than the second stone), which most people that post here would argue is the most important of the four C's. You said they're both ideal cut, but there is no single definition of what an ideal cut is. Who's the one calling it an ideal cut and what are his/her criteria? It sounds like you've seen the two stones, so my suggestion would be to compare the sparkle of the two stones in different lighting, and not just jewelry store lighting, and if one has noticeably better light return, that's the one I would go for. If the light return is similar, it seems like the first stone has the edge. That's just my two cents, but if you provide more info on the cut, you'd probably get a lot more informative advice. Best of luck.

 

[bling]

if you could post a few more specs on these stones, maybe we can give you a better opinions on these stones..