Can someone please help me choose between these two?

[chadsoc]

I'm trying to decide between two diamonds.

The first is quoted at $7177:

http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?reportno=7191791295&c=Page&childpagename=GIA%2FPage%2FReportCheck&pagename=GIA%2FDispatcher&cid=1355954554547

The second is quoted at $8440:

http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?reportno=5161053915&childpagename=GIA%2FPage%2FReportCheck&pagename=GIA%2FDispatcher&c=Page&cid=1355954554547

They both have similar table and depth percentages, the same polish and clarity grades.

The first length to width is 1.06 which is more than I wanted, and has higher than desirable fluorescence.

The second seems like it's exactly what I'm looking 1.03 length to width, excellent symmetry and polish, shows great, but is quoted at $1263 more.

My question is does the advantage in symmetry, fluorescence and color = $1263?

Thanks,

Chad

 

[diamondseeker2006]

We'd have to have magnified images of the stones to give you a meaningful opinion. Both have very thick girdles which may be making them face up small in diameter. The 1.6 is going to appear larger than the other. Twining wisps can be good inclusions in an SI2. I like fluroescence in I color stones, but you have to be careful with strong FL combined with lower clarity to make sure it doesn't look cloudy in sunlight. The other stone has a lot of inclusions, too, and it would be wise to make sure that doesn't diminish light return.

Example of nicely cut modern cushion...1.5 cts with diameter of 7.15 x 6.53 which is larger in diameter than both of the stones you posted.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/ecommerce/1-5ct-i-si1-signature-modern-cushion-diamond.html

 

[solgen]

I prefer the clarity map of the 1.61 plus it is bigger. It has a chance of being eye clean. I don't think the 1.51 is eye clean as there's a sizable carbon inclusion.