Comparing 2 RBs

[Boom]

I''m looking for a 2 carat RB upgrade and had the vendor send me comparison photos of a couple of stones I''m considering. Unfortunately he did not send IS images even though I asked for them.

Both stones have HCA scores under 2 and are ideal cut. Based on the photos below, do you guys prefer one over the other?

Appreciate your thoughts!

 

[Unearthed]

Just from looking at those pics I would say the one on the left.

 

[Siamese Kitty]

I''m no expert, but I like the one on the left, too. It looks "brighter". Is there a significant color difference between the two?

 

[tanalasta]

Hmm... both ideal cut you say.

I actually think the one on the right caught up my eye. Sure it doesn''t seem to have as much fire but I actually thought it was the better cut diamond from an initial impression.

Can''t wait to see the stats and hopefully an IS image.

 

[boston_jeff]

Hard to say from the pics... I like the one on the left better, I guess, but it looks to be more included-- are both the stones eye-clean? (obviously these are really magnified)

 

[Ellen]

Hard to say. The one on the left has definitely longer lgf''s, and I wonder if that''s why it looks a little more "lively" than the other.

I''d ask for IS images again.

 

[Boom]

Many thanks to everyone who gave their opinions.

I''ve finally gotten the IS pics. They look quite similar to me. Are they both good IS pics?

The specs of the stones are below. Both are eye-clean.

2.41 H SI1
8.60 x 8.64x 5.32
HCA 0.8
Depth: 61.7%
Table: 54%
Girdle: th-m
Fluor: stg blue
Sym: vg
Pol: vg
8.60 x 8.64x 5.32

2.44 ct I SI2
8.64-8.67x5.31
HCA 1.6
Depth: 61.4%
Table: 57%
Girdle: m
Fluor: no
Sym: ex
Pol: ex

The stone on the left has strong blue fluoresence which can be seen in the earlier pics, I think. The vendor assures me it is not hazy. The facet outlines appear a little less crisp then the stone on the right though, so I''m a little worried.

Also, is the 54% table a concern? I actually like smaller tables, but I''m wondering how a smaller table affects the performance of the stone.

I really appreciate any and all comments.

 

[Regular Guy]

For those that can read for detail (not me, really), I''d include crown & pavilion angles.

Otherwise, both certainly are attractive.

 

[boston_jeff]

I think smaller table = more fire, which is why the stone was lower on the HCA.

I think overall I would like the H/SI1 better... with SB flour it will likely face up very white.

Is the SI2 eye-clean?

 

[kcoursolle]

both look lovely, but I''d like to see the crown/pavillion angles to know more. The IS images look nice on both.

 

[Unearthed]

I think the magnified shots are amplifying the color difference, which is made more apparent by that fluoresence. Too many unanswered questions though to make a decision. No angles or details on inclusions make it hard for me to pass judgement.

 

[Boom]

Both stones are eye-clean according to the vendor. Both have twinning wisps, but the plot on the SI2 looks much worse.

The GIA certs
HCA 0.8

HCA 1.6

 

[Lorelei]

My pick based on the info given, would be the H SI1. Just check the strong blue fluorescence isn't an issue, but I doubt it.

 

[Ellen]

Both IS images look great.

Since you say they''re both eyeclean, and the flo isn''t affecting the one, it could come down to how they''ll look. The one on the left is going to have a more splintered scintillation. The other will have some splinters but with big bold flashes.

If you don''t have a preference, pick one out of a hat.