Can I please get your opinion on these ovals?

[toneill]

Can I get your opinion on what you think of these on paper? If you were going to pick one, which would you choose? Any thoughts would be appreciated.


1.
Shape: Oval
Carats: 1.10
Dims: 7.93 x 5.77 x 3.76
Depth: 65.3
Table: 52
Cut: "beautiful cut"
Color: E
Clarity: VVS1
Ratio: 1.37

2.
Shape: Oval
Carats: 1.10
Dims: 5.81 x 7.73 x 3.65
Depth: 62.8
Table: 60
Cut: Ideal
Color: D
Clarity: VVS2
Ratio: 1.33

3.
Shape: Oval
Carats: 1.12
Dims: 8.16 x 5.72 x 3.82
Depth: 66.8
Table: 57
Cut: Very good
Color: D
Clarity: VVS1
Ratio: 1.43

 

[Lorelei]

Welcome!

Unfortunately we can't tell much at all by the numbers, if these are with an online vendor, can you see if you can get photographs of the diamonds and if possible, an ASET image? But at least photos will be helpful.

ASET info here - https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-we-prefer-aset-to-ideal-scope-with-fancy-shapes.73949/

Did you want such high colour and clarity? You could drop to VS or even SI and to an F or G colour for example or a bit lower, and still have a very clean and white diamond, but of course this is a personal preference.

Also don't go by labels such as ' Beautiful Cut" etc, they don't guarantee you a well cut diamond.

Here is a very useful shape selector tool you can use to get a feel for different oval shapes.

http://www.gemappraisers.com/shapePickerNew.asp

 

[toneill]

Here''s #2. What do you think? Still working on images of the other two.

 

[Lorelei]

Good job - looks promising!

One thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post, is that ovals can show what is called a bow tie effect, it looks like a dark bow tie shape across the middle of the diamond - in some this effect is more pronounced than others, so that is something to bear in mind.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Hmm, I don't understand why the second stone faces up smaller than the other two if they are siimilar in carat weight and it supposedly is the least deep? Does it have a really thick girdle? The picture looks nice, though!

ETA: I'm also confused about the "cut" scores, when I read "beautiful cut" for #1 I think I literally scratched my head. Are these GIA certified?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/29/2008 10:57:16 AM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Hmm, I don''t understand why the second stone faces up smaller than the other two if they are siimilar in carat weight and it supposedly is the least deep? Does it have a really thick girdle? The picture looks nice, though!

ETA: I''m also confused about the ''cut'' scores, when I read ''beautiful cut'' for #1 I think I literally scratched my head. Are these GIA certified?

Vendor applied label most likely.

 

[toneill]

Yes, all are GIA certified.

Right now I'm torn between #1 and #2.

#1 is VVS1 (tiny tiny facet on the bottom) and has a bigger surface area and better polish (very good). But I'm a little concerned about the cut. I spoke with the gentleman about it and he said the "beautiful cut" was purely subjective, but based on the dimensions this is shaping up to be a pretty nice stone. According to the AGA chart it is a 2A/2B. Still working on a picture.

#2 is VVS2 (additional pinpoints not shown) and smaller surface area, but appears to be an ideal cut. According to the AGA chart it is 1A/1A. Plus it looks nice from the picture.

Can anyone help me break this tie please?

Will keep an eye out for the bowtie as well, as long as its not toooo big im ok.