Decision Decison! Which one would you pick?

[bschai]

Hello,

I have been looking at diamonds for my E-ring for sometime now. I am narrowing down to two diamonds. I am still deciding and want to you what you guys think. They are both from GOG.

BTW, Rhino is wonderful, he has been so patient with me answering lots and lots of questions. Thank you Rhino! I am getting close, real close.

So, what do you guys think?

Diamond ONE:
1.31ct D VVS2 Round H&A
Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 1.31ct
Color: D
Clarity: VVS2
GIA Cut Grade: Excellent
est AGS Cut Grade: Ideal
AGS Light Performance: Ideal
Optical Symmetry: Superior
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: Negligible
Girdle: 2.50%
Culet: None
Lab Report: GIA
Lab Report #: 16193415
In House: Yes
Width: 6.97mm
Length: 7.00mm
Depth: 4.36mm
Table Percentage: 55.22%
Depth Percentage: 62.46%
Crown : 34.83
Crown Depth: 15.60%
Pavilion: 40.71
Pavilion Depth: 42.93%
Upper Girdle: 40.59
Lower Girdle : 41.95


Gemex/Brilliancescope: Very High, Very High+ , Very High+
Isee2: 9.6

Diamond TWO:
1.27ct E VVS2 Round H&A
Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 1.27ct
Color: E
Clarity: VVS2
GIA Cut Grade: Excellent
est AGS Cut Grade: Ideal
AGS Light Performance: Ideal
Optical Symmetry: Superior
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: Medium
Girdle: 1.69%
Culet: None
Lab Report: GIA
Lab Report #: 16191868
In House: Yes
Width: 6.97mm
Length: 7.00mm
Depth: 4.31mm
Table Percentage: 55.93%
Depth Percentage: 61.66%
Crown : 34.17
Crown Depth: 14.91%
Pavilion : 41.05
Pavilion Depth: 43.45%
Upper Girdle: 41.81
Lower Girdle: 42.21

Gemex/Brilliancescope: High to Very High, Very High+, Very High
Isee2 Score:9.8

Do you guys think the medium flourescence in #2 could be an issue? I also like #2''s arrow which looks very symmetric. But #1 has a better gemex score.

Anything else I should pay attention to?

 

[bschai]

Dimond One:

 

[bschai]

Diamond One:

 

[bschai]

Dimond One:

 

[bschai]

Diamond One:

 

[bschai]

Diamond TWO
==========

 

[bschai]

Diamond TWO

 

[bschai]

Diamond TWO

 

[bschai]

Diamond TWO

 

[gontama]

I do not see #2 @ GOG ... but #2 seems tad better. I would venture to say #2 is a serious performer with beauty. No, BS of #2 is not a problem at all. It is excellent. And No, medium is not a problem at all. Not that different from faint. I was not satisfied with medium and would like to have SB or even VSB on D/E, a true blue white, in the future. My wife loves fluo too. I believe this is a diamond from the cutter contantly making this proportion (so called 34 / 41) and I can say honestly it is just beautiful with nimble appearance. Really. If it were over 2ct, I would go for it with no hesitation (if financially permitted).

 

[bschai]

Thank you for the comment. I think the pricescope diamond search engine still shows both.

"34/41" so this is some kind of special proportion? But i do notice it has a very nice arrow pattern.

 

[gontama]

Date: 9/20/2007 2:48:48 AM
Author: bschai
Thank you for the comment. I think the pricescope diamond search engine still shows both.

''34/41'' so this is some kind of special proportion? But i do notice it has a very nice arrow pattern.

Yes it was there. This diamond (#2) is cut really tight. It should be very nice even among super ideals. It is because of the great symmetry that you see "very nice arrow pattern" (on picture/IS/DiamXray)". Yes it is.

34/41 coupled with pretty fixed star/lgf arrangement seems to be what this cutter chooses. Some argue that traditional 34.5/40.8 c/p combo is superir, or 41 pav is where light begins to leak, or you see more color beacuse of color entrapment, or 34/41 is chosen to retain carat.

For those who might be concerned with above "issues" when shopping, here is my observation with no bias, period. I''ve seen and compared many AGS-0/GIA-EX H&A with different c/p combo here and there. I must honestly say that none of them is true.

1) As you see in IS there is no such light leakage.

2) I am farily color sensitive and can tell the difference between D/G faceup pretty easily, and sometimes D/F faceup. I appreciate D and E which are visibly different (to me) from F and G. I chose G because I wanted size without sacrificing the cut. I see the color, but that is fine because the diamond''s beauty compensates the color, and my wife does not see color in it. F is almost the same as G to me under 2ct. To my eye, there is not even the slightest hint of color entrapment. Many cut consious people here do not seem to see color of F and below. Given that, how could it be possible to observe the effect of the color entrapment that might theoreticallly exist. Pathlength migth be longer. But I would only worry about that when I become able to see the difference between D+ and D-.

3) The spread of this diamond is about 6.45 mm/ct, which is good. There are many great diamonds that have less spread than this, no matter the C/P combo. This is a completely misleading statement and is simply wrong.

I tend to think however that 34/41 may not be the parameter for diamonds with not-the-best-symmetry. It can more easily lead to leakage than 34.5/40.8. With this great symmetry GOG sells, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. I actually prefer this combo. To me it appears nimble, probably partly because lgf close to 80. I believe you like this diamond.

Hope this helps.

By the way, if you read this, Storm, thank you so much again. Without you, I admit I would have believed what are sometimes said about 34/41. That is a beautiful combo, with the condition of great symmetry, which this cutter typically provides.

 

[elmo]

E-ring? That''s a killer matched pair and it would be a crime to separate them. Your girl needs earrings to go with that e-ring, right?

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/20/2007 4:30:27 AM
Author: gontama


I tend to think however that 34/41 may not be the parameter for diamonds with not-the-best-symmetry. It can more easily lead to leakage than 34.5/40.8. With this great symmetry GOG sells, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. I actually prefer this combo. To me it appears nimble, probably partly because lgf close to 80. I believe you like this diamond.

I totally agree with this gontama.

bschai, I have a 34/41, LOVE it! Very bright with great fire.

Assuming you are aware of the premium high color and clarity bring, I would pick the E.

 

[gontama]

Date: 9/20/2007 7:47:56 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 9/20/2007 4:30:27 AM
Author: gontama


I tend to think however that 34/41 may not be the parameter for diamonds with not-the-best-symmetry. It can more easily lead to leakage than 34.5/40.8. With this great symmetry GOG sells, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. I actually prefer this combo. To me it appears nimble, probably partly because lgf close to 80. I believe you like this diamond.

I totally agree with this gontama.

bschai, I have a 34/41, LOVE it! Very bright with great fire.

Assuming you are aware of the premium high color and clarity bring, I would pick the E.

Hi Ellen - I thank you a lot too. Your pic speak by itself. They are what my wife likes most. Simply amazing. I cannot do that. It is actually tough to have time to post here as I do not have much time. You seem to be helping somebody all day long. My sincere thanks to you ... I think that we won't have a war on this planet if every one is like you.

 

[Ellen]

Aww, gontama, what a truly sweet thing to say! Really, that is one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me. Thank you!

And thanks to you for helping out as well!

 

[bschai]

Thank you all for the comments.

I decided to go for #2. The 34/41.

In fact, Rhino was kind enough to make a video comparison between #1 and #2 and another 1.291 D VS1 that I was looking at.

I went through the video so many times. Despite I found that the #1 (1.31, right one in the video) show better brightness under white light, I do like the fire and scintillation of #2 (1.27, the left one in the video). But overall, it''s very hard to tell which one is really the "better" one from the video.

I think it''s an interesting video.

I will not change my mind. Cuz I think I am now biased to the the excellent symmetry of #2 , the 34/41 and #1 was also sold to another guy already!

But still I am curious what you guys think of the three from the video.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/21/2007 6:17:41 PM
Author: bschai

But still I am curious what you guys think of the three from the video.

I think you could have thrown a dart at them and come out a winner.

Seriously, your stone is gorgeous, and I think you''ll be very happy. Congrats!


Now, whatcha putting it in??

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Really! They are both great! I would have chosen the E because it was the same size (diameter) as the other and should have cost less because the other was a D. You couldn''t go wrong with either of those, that''s for sure!

 

[bschai]

Thanks, Ellen,

And that would be my next round of struggles.

 

[Fly Girl]

I just watched the video and I loved the 1.27 E.

Just more appealing scintillation patterns.

Thanks for sharing the video. So much to learn here.

My F has med fluor. No problem with that at all.

Wonderful choice!!!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/21/2007 6:52:32 PM
Author: bschai
Thanks, Ellen,

And that would be my next round of struggles.

lol Well, got any contenders?

 

[bschai]

Good to hear that you also like the 1.27

For setting, i know that my girlfriend prefers less "flashy" type. So it will be a solitaire, no side stones or paved stones.

I am considering, vatche''s X-prong, Royal crown, Mark''s Flame (without sidestones) and sunburst. I think these are the 4 popular choices anyway, so i am not really narrowing it down

BTW, do you know if more girls prefer a "see through" type of setting where most of the diamond is exposed (e.g. in royal crown, you pretty much see the whole diamond). I wonder for Mark Morell''s flame without side stones will also have this "see through" effect since there are 3 holes in the prongs from the side.

Thanks.

bschai

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/21/2007 7:12:15 PM
Author: bschai

Good to hear that you also like the 1.27

For setting, i know that my girlfriend prefers less ''flashy'' type. So it will be a solitaire, no side stones or paved stones.

I am considering, vatche''s X-prong, Royal crown, Mark''s Flame (without sidestones) and sunburst. I think these are the 4 popular choices anyway, so i am not really narrowing it down

BTW, do you know if more girls prefer a ''see through'' type of setting where most of the diamond is exposed (e.g. in royal crown, you pretty much see the whole diamond). I wonder for Mark Morell''s flame without side stones will also have this ''see through'' effect since there are 3 holes in the prongs from the side.

Thanks.

bschai

Oh, I love your choices! I am very fond of a gorgeous stone going in a simple solitaire. (obviously, lol)

As to your question about which a gal would prefer as far as "see through" vs. non see through, I honestly don''t know. My guess would be see through, but that''s just a guess. That might be a good poll, and would help narrow things down.

 

[gontama]

Date: 9/21/2007 7:12:15 PM
Author: bschai

Good to hear that you also like the 1.27

For setting, i know that my girlfriend prefers less 'flashy' type. So it will be a solitaire, no side stones or paved stones.

I am considering, vatche's X-prong, Royal crown, Mark's Flame (without sidestones) and sunburst. I think these are the 4 popular choices anyway, so i am not really narrowing it down

BTW, do you know if more girls prefer a 'see through' type of setting where most of the diamond is exposed (e.g. in royal crown, you pretty much see the whole diamond). I wonder for Mark Morell's flame without side stones will also have this 'see through' effect since there are 3 holes in the prongs from the side.

Thanks.

bschai

With the color you chose, "see through" setting has a benefit of showing the nice color from the profile view too. She can enjoy the diamond from every angle. Medium, to some extent, adds beauty to the profile view too. Good luck.

 

[bschai]

Ops. I was getting more inclined to the sunburst. Now that you mentioned about it, I want to reconsider the see through type.

So do you think it''s a bit of a waste to have a non-see through type for a nicely cut diamond?

So hard to decide...

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/22/2007 4:44:16 AM
Author: bschai
Ops. I was getting more inclined to the sunburst. Now that you mentioned about it, I want to reconsider the see through type.

So do you think it's a bit of a waste to have a non-see through type for a nicely cut diamond?

So hard to decide...

I wouldn't call it a waste. And I wouldn't stress too much about this, as I don't think it's that big an issue. I would suggest concentrating more on which style you think she'd like most, and which suits her personality the best.

 

[gontama]

Date: 9/22/2007 4:44:16 AM
Author: bschai
Ops. I was getting more inclined to the sunburst. Now that you mentioned about it, I want to reconsider the see through type.

So do you think it''s a bit of a waste to have a non-see through type for a nicely cut diamond?

So hard to decide...

Nicely-cut diamonds look beautiful and face up bright regardless of the color of the diamond. Those who are color sensitive (like me) may like the icy looking of D/E color. Others may be perfectly fine with I or J colors, which are indeed no less beautiful than higher color diamonds.

Diamonds are beautiful from the profile view too. Tension setting for example shows a nice looking side view. We once owned a Movado diamond (the watch maker also offers a proprietary cut, even more facets than solasfera) that are set on what they call a quarter-bezel setting. You can see it at Movado.com if they still offer. It was a pretty tension-like setting.

My wife particularly liked that side view and I agreed. Her preference since then has changed from a delicate and complicated setting to a simple yet elegant “see through” setting.

The advantage of the D/E color is greater when set on a “see through” setting. She (and others) can enjoy the icy looking from the profile too. It is not a waste to set a “nicely cut” diamond on a non-see-through setting. It “may/can” be a waste to set a “nicely colored” diamond on a non-see-through setting. Her preference should be taken into consideration of course. But the “preference” can also change a lot as she looks at more settings.

Regarding the symmetry you seem to be based on - I think there are people who are “cut sensitive” or “symmetry sensitive”, just like some are color sensitive, or clarity sensitive – people who can see the inclusions other do not see at all.

My wife is never color sensitive, which helped me lower the color, but she seems to be “symmetry sensitive”. She did not know anything (knows very little even now) about H&A, but she chooses a diamond with “nicest and prettiest arrow”. She is not too crazy about the light return. But I had to satisfy her inherent ability to appreciate highly symmetric pattern in a shiny object. She sees difference among AGS0s in term of precision and I agree. For some, tightness or precision may not be just a mind-clean aspect. It may play a big role in diamonds beauty. I think you did great in all aspects of diamonds for your girlfriend. Hope you find a nice setting for your girlfriend.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

What you''re really deciding between is 4 prongs or 6 prongs. The stone sits a little higher with the royal crown, but it might work better with a wedding band. I believe Ellen''s x-prong works well with a wedding band, too. I think the Flame and Sunburst do not allow a wedding band to sit flush, if that is important to you. I love the Flame with the tiny diamonds and probably wouldn''t do that one without them. The holes will be too tiny to really add to the view of the diamond pavilion.

The one ring you haven''t mentioned is the Leon Mege classic setting, and I think it is hard to beat for a 4 prong solitaire.

The Vatche rings are probably closer to 3mm whereas the Leon will usually be between 2 and 2.5mm. All of these rings are beautiful and will be a good choice!

 

[gontama]

Date: 9/22/2007 6:42:19 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
What you''re really deciding between is 4 prongs or 6 prongs. The stone sits a little higher with the royal crown, but it might work better with a wedding band. I believe Ellen''s x-prong works well with a wedding band, too. I think the Flame and Sunburst do not allow a wedding band to sit flush, if that is important to you. I love the Flame with the tiny diamonds and probably wouldn''t do that one without them. The holes will be too tiny to really add to the view of the diamond pavilion.

The one ring you haven''t mentioned is the Leon Mege classic setting, and I think it is hard to beat for a 4 prong solitaire.

The Vatche rings are probably closer to 3mm whereas the Leon will usually be between 2 and 2.5mm. All of these rings are beautiful and will be a good choice!

If you are choosing between 4 prongs and 6 prongs as DS says ... please ignore what I said about "tension" etc. And yes, the choice depends on whether she wants another wedding band or not. Some go with just one ring which has a substantial presence. Sorry if I misunderstood your selection criteria.