Can''t decide which 2 carat. Can you help please?!?

[almostthere]

So this long time lurker''s time has almost come! I''m about to buy one of these 2 carats, but can''t decided between the two.

1) 2.01 G SI1
vg polish, g symm, no flour
8.15 x 8.21 x 4.98mm
Table 56%, Depth 60.9%, crown angle 34, crown height 14.9%, pavilion angle 40.6, pavilion height 42.5%

2) 2.03 G SI1
vg polish, excellent symm, strong flour
8.08x8.11x4.96
Table 59%, Depth 61.3%, crown angle 34.6, crown height 13.9%, pavilion angle 41, pavilion height 43.4%

Diamond 2 is about $750 less due to the flouresence. The vendor has looked at both diamonds and says that other than the flouresence (which doesn''t affect the appearence), they are very similar performers.

I''m leaning towards #1 at the momment since I think flouresence is kinda cool, but any comments would be much appreciated!!!

 

[Beacon]

Hmmm, I did this once with a strong flo stone. I never dealt with a strong flo before so I thought I would try it out since it was a better price. The vendor also told me it did not affect the stone so I had them send it over.

When I first got it I thought it was perfectly fine. It was a lovely F colored stone and though it did sort of change very slightly in strong sunlight it didn''t bug me at all since I don''t make a habit of standing in strong sunlight while staring at my diamond.

But, after a while I did notice some very odd things. When I carefully looked through the pavillion of diamond in a room with natural (but not direct sun) lighting it sort of looked slightly less transparent than my other stone which is an E w/o Flo. I compared them side by side. My husband could see this too - a slightly hazy, purple-lavendar color.

So I took this stone around everywhere to see what it would do. Summary: in 85% of lighting conditions it was perfectly beautiful. It got weird in the oddest places: Starbucks, Tiffanys (!), the dance studio, twlight evening light.

Still unsure that I wasn''t just crazy or inexperienced I took it and my own loupe up to where they were having a jewelery auction near me. Lots and lots of diamonds. Some good, some not so good. My stone was less transparent than the ones I examined at auction, side by side.

As much as I liked the diamond overall, I wanted a stone that I would feel comfortable showing to anyone in any kind of lighting so I returned it, bought one with no Flo and it is fine.

I would do medium flo w/o hesitation, but the strong didn''t work for me for this one stone at least.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/21/2006 1:28:25 PM
Author: Beacon
Hmmm, I did this once with a strong flo stone. I never dealt with a strong flo before so I thought I would try it out since it was a better price. The vendor also told me it did not affect the stone so I had them send it over.

When I first got it I thought it was perfectly fine. It was a lovely F colored stone and though it did sort of change very slightly in strong sunlight it didn''t bug me at all since I don''t make a habit of standing in strong sunlight while staring at my diamond.

But, after a while I did notice some very odd things. When I carefully looked through the pavillion of diamond in a room with natural (but not direct sun) lighting it sort of looked slightly less transparent than my other stone which is an E w/o Flo. I compared them side by side. My husband could see this too - a slightly hazy, purple-lavendar color.

So I took this stone around everywhere to see what it would do. Summary: in 85% of lighting conditions it was perfectly beautiful. It got weird in the oddest places: Starbucks, Tiffanys (!), the dance studio, twlight evening light.

Still unsure that I wasn''t just crazy or inexperienced I took it and my own loupe up to where they were having a jewelery auction near me. Lots and lots of diamonds. Some good, some not so good. My stone was less transparent than the ones I examined at auction, side by side.

As much as I liked the diamond overall, I wanted a stone that I would feel comfortable showing to anyone in any kind of lighting so I returned it, bought one with no Flo and it is fine.

I would do medium flo w/o hesitation, but the strong didn''t work for me for this one stone at least.

See, I think it would be cool if it glowed lavendar! Esp. if it was bright white in other lights... I definitely want a med blue flour in my stone, the only thing that would shy me from strong blue would be the milky/oily thing I''ve heard about but not seen. Maybe this is why it is preferred in lower colored stones like J?

 

[rogue]

Date: 7/21/2006 1:09:55 PM
Author:almostthere
So this long time lurker''s time has almost come! I''m about to buy one of these 2 carats, but can''t decided between the two.

1) 2.01 G SI1
vg polish, g symm, no flour
8.15 x 8.21 x 4.98mm
Table 56%, Depth 60.9%, crown angle 34, crown height 14.9%, pavilion angle 40.6, pavilion height 42.5%

2) 2.03 G SI1
vg polish, excellent symm, strong flour
8.08x8.11x4.96
Table 59%, Depth 61.3%, crown angle 34.6, crown height 13.9%, pavilion angle 41, pavilion height 43.4%

Diamond 2 is about $750 less due to the flouresence. The vendor has looked at both diamonds and says that other than the flouresence (which doesn''t affect the appearence), they are very similar performers.

I''m leaning towards #1 at the momment since I think flouresence is kinda cool, but any comments would be much appreciated!!!

Do you mean you''re leaning towards #2 (that''s the stone that has fluorescence)?

#1 has an excellent HCA score (.6, whereas #2 is 2.4) so it might have better light performance than #2 in spite of its "good" symmetry. And it looks bigger. Can you see them both?

 

[Mara]

definitely #1 for me and it has nothing to do with the fluor. the numbers are just more 'typically ideal' where for me #2 would have to have a special look that i really liked....and strong fluor has to be seen i think to see if you like it. i love my faint fluor and would love med but strong coupled with the 59 table (yack for me) and the 41 pav angle doesn't work for me...esp when they are so close in other manners. i would imagine #1 would be better looking *to me*. though i don't love the 'good' symmetry on the first one, what is up with that! ugh.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/21/2006 1:09:55 PM
Author:almostthere
So this long time lurker''s time has almost come! I''m about to buy one of these 2 carats, but can''t decided between the two.

1) 2.01 G SI1
vg polish, g symm, no flour
8.15 x 8.21 x 4.98mm
Table 56%, Depth 60.9%, crown angle 34, crown height 14.9%, pavilion angle 40.6, pavilion height 42.5%

2) 2.03 G SI1
vg polish, excellent symm, strong flour
8.08x8.11x4.96
Table 59%, Depth 61.3%, crown angle 34.6, crown height 13.9%, pavilion angle 41, pavilion height 43.4%

Diamond 2 is about $750 less due to the flouresence. The vendor has looked at both diamonds and says that other than the flouresence (which doesn''t affect the appearence), they are very similar performers.

I''m leaning towards #1 at the momment since I think flouresence is kinda cool, but any comments would be much appreciated!!!

Cut #1 performs better on HCA, but #2 has better sym. That''s a tough choice!

 

[snlee]

My vote is for #1. According to the HCA #1 performs way better in light return, fire, and scintillation then #2. I also don''t like the 59% table in #2.

 

[Beacon]

You know, I thought it might be cool too, at first. But it turned out not to be so cool. It didn''t glow bright lavender like it would in a black light setting. But instead sometimes it became very hard to see the stone at all, meaning it develped a very dark, kinda "black hole" look. It was very well cut so that wasn''t the trouble - it was the lighting and the flo.

I really wanted to like this stone cause it was beautiful in many settings plus it was better price. Safeway, Home Depot, oh it was so great! But since it was large and expensive I just couldn''t go with it. I wanted a stone I could hand to the staff at Cartier and have them say "beautiful diamond" - which they did with my new one!

The people at Tiffany actually placed my new one inside their cabinet with their other diamonds and the new one stood up to those very expensive babies. I fear my old strong flo one might have gone wonky. I just didn''t have confidence in it.

 

[almostthere]

Yes, sorry I ment I initially preferred #2. Can anyone tell the difference between good symmetry and very good symmetry?

 

[littleroman]

" I wanted a stone I could hand to the staff at Cartier and have them say "beautiful diamond"


This is so funny I almost fell of my chair laughing.

 

[almostthere]

Thank you so much everyone for your thoughtful comments!

It looks like #1 is the undisputed winner!

 

[Rod]

Date: 7/21/2006 1:59:45 PM
Author: littleroman
'' I wanted a stone I could hand to the staff at Cartier and have them say ''beautiful diamond''


This is so funny I almost fell of my chair laughing.

Sorry.......but can you explain what''s so funny about this? Not being critical and maybe I''m missing your point, but I think the sentiment is what most of us PS''ers want. We want the best cut stones like Tiffany/Cartier stones, but we want our stones to look every bit as nice, if not better than their''s for less money.

CHeers