Compare the following three stones (sorry no idealscope :( )

[sparky_2304]

Hi guys,

I have received a great deal of help from the previous post regarding cut quality and am now selecting between three stones that are rated as GIA excellent cut and have HCA scores ranging between 1.1 and 1.5. All diamonds are verified to be eye clean but I don't have the idealscope/ASET images for them Therefore I'm attaching the magnified images and GIA reports and am wondering if I could have some feedback about which one looks best and represents the best deal. Prices are all around $6.3k-$6.8k. I'm looking to set the diamonds either on a pendant or a ring so brilliance is a must. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for the help!

=====
Diamond #1: I-color/SI2/HCA1.1


=====

=====
Diamond #2: H-color/VS2/HCA1.4


=====

=====
Diamond #3: I-color/SI2/HCA1.0

=====

 

[metatrix]

Re: Compare the following three stones (sorry no idealscope

Diamond 1: I have a hard time believing this is eye clean.

Diamond 2: Not the greatest spread...it is 0.2 mm smaller than the other two.

Diamond 3: Do you have a photo of it? Could be eye clean. Need to make sure the strong fluoro doesn't make it hazy.

Btw, you mislabelled the colours. Diamond 1 is an H and diamond 2 is an I.

 

[sparky_2304]

Re: Compare the following three stones (sorry no idealscope

Thanks for the advice and the tip on the typo! Somehow I'm not able to go back and edit the original post now. I also agree that the first one might not be eye-clean as the vendor claims. The third stone is from BN and therefore does not have either ASET/idealscope or a magnified picture. It is verified by BN as eye-clean which (in their own words) means that "inclusions can't be seen from the top down view at 6-8 inches away when looking for about 10 seconds. Look more closely, for longer, or from other angles and you will see them". The GIA report does seem to look ok but how much weight should I put on BN's assessment? I'd rather not waste time shipping the stones back and forth if possible.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Compare the following three stones (sorry no idealscope

Regarding stone #3 you run the risk of having to send that one back, depending on your tolerances. Aparently you are ok with fluorescence since all the referenced stones have some level, but #3 is strong. That combined with Si2 clarity with lots of twinning wisps and graining, you are very likely to have diminished transparency. You would be better off with a stone that is not strictly eye clean but has crisp transparency and good cutting.

 

[SirGuy]

Re: Compare the following three stones (sorry no idealscope

I agree about the inclusions on #1. #2 gave some of its weight to that chunky girdle rather than its spread, but it doesn't seem too bad except for the lower color. I'm not a fan of strong fluorescence.

 

[metatrix]

Re: Compare the following three stones (sorry no idealscope

I think you can do better. I will look around for you and see what else I can find.