Brilliance or Size?

[MrGreen]

I looked at two really nice diamonds yesterday. Diamond number 1 was a little smaller but visiblly had more brilliance and fire. Diamond numer 2 was slightly larger but was not as brilliant as number 1 (although it was still fairly good).

I sat there for about an hour and could not make a decision on which one I liked the best.
Size is important as I want it to look good on my girlfriends finger, but I could not turn away from the fact that the brilliance and fire of diamond 1 was simply amazing.

Should I get the diamond that is slightly smaller and that has more sparkle, or get the one that is slightly larger but not as brilliant? I keep going back and forth and can''t make a decision!

Diamond 1
$6800
Shape: Princess
1.35 Ct
Color F
Clarity SI1
Measurements: 5.91x6.01
Crown Angle 46.5
Crown Height 13.7%
Pavil Angle 39.7
Pavil Depth 43%
Culet 2.1 %
Table 72%
Depth 74.8%
Girdle thick 2.9% (.17mm)
Fluorescence: None

Diamond 2
$7400
Shape: Princess
1.37 Ct
Color E
Clarity SI1
Measurements: 6.21x6.18
Crown Angle 50.4
Crown Height 10.0%
Pavil Angle 42.9
Pavil Depth 44%
Culet 1.1 %
Table 75%
Depth 70.7%
Girdle thick 1.7% (.11mm)
Fluorescence: None

 

[orbaya]

In my opinion...definately quality over quantity. You''ll find many people here say that you can look at numbers all you want...they are a guide, especially in fancy cuts. The final decision should be your eye. You seem drawn to #1...personally as a woman I would prefer a diamond that was a little smaller and sparkles like crazy over a slightly bigger one that isn''t as brilliant.

 

[Jennifer5973]

Number one.

 

[Kaleigh]

I am not an expert, but I would defintely go with diamond no# 1. Sparkle wins over size, just my opinion!!

 

[Patty]

Go for the sparkle!

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

Honestly these two diamonds are not that different in size. I mean 1.35 vs 1.37! Again!! splitting hairs here. So go for the one that wowed you visually. Your gf is not going to go around and say "oh how I wish he would have gotten me the less sparkly 1.37 instead of this smaller 1.35!!!!"

Since you like #1 so much... Go with your gut!!!!

 

[MrGreen]

The 1.37 carat one looks larger because it has a smaller depth and therefore larger proportions (5.91x6.01 vs. 6.21x6.1. So even though the carat weight is almost identical, there is still a visual difference. From the information I''ve gathered in this forum my guess would be that diamond #1 is a better cut and that is the reason it has more brilliance. I know that to the eye it is more brilliant, and as all of you have suggested, that is what I should go for - thanks for your input!!

Interestingly enough, stone #1 is less expensive and I am guessing this is because it is F in color vs. E.

 

[Upgradable]

I would prefer to have the first one. Beauty over brawn.

 

[lovesquares]

Stone number 1 definitely. Cut if very important and that''s the likely difference you are seeing in stone #1. There''s no point of having a diamond which is not cut well.

 

[valeria101]

The slight size difference will fade once the stone is set. Brilliance will stay

 

[MrGreen]

Well, I just had diamond #1 appraised and the appraiser agreed with the cert and in her opinion it was a very well cut diamond.

I was a little concerned that the appraised value was only about 20% more than what I am paying for the diamond. But she mentioned that most appraisals, especially those that are attached with Gems in retail shops, are highly inflated. This is to make the customer "feel" that they are getting a good deal and that they are purchasing something that is very valuable - but that these are unrealistic values. Does any one else feel that this is the case?

An interesting note is that she said in Gemology school they teach you to go with what your eye sees and to trust that judgement - i.e don''t focus so much on the numbers - your eyes will tell you if the stone is brilliant or not.

 

[Hest88]

Appraisals are often inflated. Think of it: if everyone''s stone appraised for as much as the appraisers say then everyone *should* be paying twice as much for their stones!