Comparing 3 diamonds, HELP!

[Pair0Ducks]

OK, first time poster who feels like he has learned more in the last two weeks about diamonds than in the previous 10 years when I bought my wife''s engagement ring. I''m going for a 10 year anniversary ring now and want (natch) the best stone for my money. Here are 3 stones I''m looking at with some questions below:

Stone A:
Carat .78
I, SI1 (eye-clean)
Depth 61.7
Table 56
Polish/Sym Id/Id
Fluor none
Crown angle 34.1
Pavillion angle 41
cullet pointed
Holloway Cut Adviser 1.2 (ex/ex/vg/vg)
This stone is listed as a H&A cut (although I don''t think branded)

Stone B:
Carat .76
I, SI1 (eye-clean)
Depth 61.2
Table 56
Polish/Sym Id/Id
Fluor none
Crown angle 33.9
Pavillion angle 41
cullet pointed
Holloway Cut Adviser 1.5 (ex/vg/vg/vg)
This stone is listed as a H&A cut (although I don''t think branded)

Stone C:
Carat .92
I, SI2 (eye-clean)
Depth 61.9
Table 53
Polish/Sym vg/vg
Fluor none
Crown angle 34.2
Pavillion angle 40.6
Cullet .5
Holloway Cut Adviser 0.7 (ex/ex/ex/vg)
This stone is was said to be AGS0 although the report is GIA

All 3 stones are within $5 of each other in price/carat. It will be mounted in a yellow-gold 3-stone ring (hence I''m not scared of the I color).

Questions:
I was surprised that the Holloway Cut rating was lowest for the stone that was listed as "ideal" vs "superideal". How much stock do I put in this number? How about the polish/sym (vg. vs. id.)? Can that have a big effect on the actual performance of the stone vs. the "numbers"?

When looking at a firescope image, what exactly am I evaluating? I can see if the arrow heads and bodies line up nicely, but beyond that are there other things I should look at?

Is there a better test or image I should request to evaluate the performance of a stone? Brilliancescope? Neatoscope(TM)?


I''m a little skittish because now I look back at the stone I got 10 years ago (when I had zero knowledge) and I think I picked a very poor stone for my money. This time I want a winner, darnit!

 

[Nicrez]

Well, from your excellent choices, it looks like you are a winner already, maybe your stone can follow!!!

Ok, I personally like the first one, as a good SI1 can be great, and with a 1.5 on the HCa it's a sparkler. It has a nice ration of depth to table, so that's my reasoning, as well as the Excellent white light, Excellent Fire, and VG Scint and Spread.

I may not be agreed with, and an excellent counter-argument is that the 3rd stone has better optics, and IS larger, so they could very well have a good argument. Again, my choice is a personal one based on clarity and on proportion.

By all means if you want size, then PLEASE go with #3, but it's a tough call, but I had to choose one, so I chose #1, but #3 is ALSO an excellent choice...

Good luck and either stones are winners already!!!

 

[bling]

all three look very nice..you said its for a three stone ring..are these the three stones, or are you picking out of these three for just the middle one? again..all seem very nice..

 

[hoorray]

They all look like great stones. Number 3 is intriguing to me -- small tables can mean lots of fire, which I love. Are the diameters all pretty equivalent? That is a good way to see if they will look the same size. Carat is a weight, not dimension. You might have a couple sent to an appraiser so that you can let your eyes make the final decision.

good luck!

 

[Pair0Ducks]

I'll post the dimesions a little later. I'm at home right now and am trying to keep this a total secret from my wife. Note easy thing to do after 10 years of marriage. You can't just "hide" $3000-$4000.

I believe the .92 is actually "bigger". I do like the idea of a bigger diamond and mostly wanted to make sure I wasn't giving something up by going with it since it was supposedly an inferior cut. It also is a SI2. I could post the cert, but don't know if there is some ethical problem with doing that. All three stones do have inclusions in the table, but have all been described as "eye clean" by the vendor. Of course I will want to take a look myself before I decide. The .92 seems to have what look like a few small clouds by the markings.

Can I post the GIA report or should I not?

 

[hoorray]

Go ahead and post the cert -- people do it all the time. I didn't catch the .92 ctw for #3, of course it should look larger. if not, something is wrong. Examining the inclusions carefully is a good idea on SI1 and SI2 stones. You can find some great ones, but you need to weed through them. Maybe the vendor(s) can send you some magnified pictures of the inclusions. That should help.

 

[Pair0Ducks]

OK, the dimensions are as follows:

Stone A:
5.92x5.93x3.66

Stone C:
6.28x6.32x3.86

Here is the diagram from the GIA report for stone C (at least I'm trying to attach it). It's a fax, so of course it isn't too clear. You should be able to get a rough idea though.