Confused between 3, low ct. princesses, help me pick?

[nissan]

Quite simply, of the three, which would you pick? I've narrowed it down to these three as they fit w/in my budget. I'm basically looking for one w/the highest "brilliance"/fire to it. The picks have me a little confused in this regard. #2 (blue), I don't have cut info on it from WF. I guess it can be derived roughly from the depth/table, but it'd be easy if WF classified it somehow? I e-mailed WF abt it, so we'll see I guess. #3 (red) is higher priced as you can see and the cut is appealing, but the girdle is v. thick which is where I'm concerned -- paying for weight you can't see?

In talking with JA and comparing #3 and #1, JA mentioned that #3 might be the better pick because, despite it's v.thk girdle, it will actually look slightly larger than #1 given the 1.0 ratio. Also, #1 is little cheaper, but I don't know if there's a noticeable difference between "premium" and "ideal" in terms of cut (100% buying online, I don't have time to goto a store). I'm totally confused now so I'm looking for some recommendations as to which one to go with. Any help is truly appreciated!


EDIT: I just tried a pricescope search again to see what'd pop up & something jumped out at me. A GIA cert'd (15380735) diamond is listed by 5 sellers, none of which appear to have it in house. However, with respect to the "cut," Mondera lists it as "very good" while JA lists it as "Ideal" (WF doesn't have the info on the site). I just saw this and it's beginning to bother me as I was seriously considering that one (#3). Where do the definitions come from, I'm beginning to think it's just marketing? I hate to phrase it this way, but whose can you trust or what ?'s should I ask them to find out in light of none of the 5 sellers having the stone in house?

 

[JulieN]

1 is too rectangular; you will see the difference.

Not sure if I'm missing something; try this one. http://www.whiteflash.com/aca_princess/a-cut-above-princess-cut-diamond-159863.htm#

ahah, I missed that it's $/ct, not the $.

 

[belle]

well, i would nix #1 if you have a keen eye because it may not look square to you (if you want square).
you''re not losing much on the third with the thick girdle, especially compared to the first two, as it is bigger by the numbers.
i would investigate 2&3 further.

 

[nissan]

JulieN, I only wish I''d have that much to spend right now!

3 was what my first choice was. However, please see my edit to the 1st post. Apparently, there is a discrep. in how the sellers are interpreting the cut on the same exact stone. I couldn''t find anything definitive in a search & didn''t want to post a new thread so excuse the quick bump!

 

[JulieN]

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=865755
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=866389
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=862192
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=888121

Those are my picks out of the first 50 my search on JA returned, .35 ct+, >=I, >=SI1, and >=4 mm. Ideal Scope will tell more of the story.
Of course, only works if the picture belongs to the right stone. Sometimes they get mixed up.

I think Mondera does not use the ideal designation for princesses.