Diamon Evaluations - Pull the trigger or keep on searchin''?

[BigRy]

Hey All,

I've been shamelessly trolling the RockyTalk boards over the last 6 weeks or so, absorbing information from everyone's thoughtful posts as well as educamagating myself in the art of finding the perfect engagement ring. I'm good friends with Domer, whom several pscope contributers have recently helped pick out a diamond. I've whittled my preferences down to the point where my perfect stone would be the following:

* Size: Looking for 1.75 – 2.1 or so. I’d love to find something around 1.8-1.9 to take advantage of lower per/carat costs.
* Cut: A stone with an HCA score of 1.7 or better…1.5 if possible. Since the HCA system has it’s quirks, going by the BrilliantScope, “Very High” scores are preferred in all three categories. H&A, AGS0.
* Color: I’m flexible on this point, but don’t want to go lower than H. G color is my target.
* Clarity: Considering I’m asking for a lot in the cut/color, I’m willing to look at an eye-clean SI stone.
* Cost: Originally $12-14k, but I can go a bit over if I find the right diamond.

Unfortunately, situations have dictated that my girlfriend has had to wait awhile for this proposal, so I'm going for nothing short of 'Who-HOO!' as she deserves the best I can get. This is still going to be a surprise, so I've only been able to ascertain a few details from her guiding my purchase. I know she wants round and simple, usually joking about something large (but I know she'd love any size). With that in mind, here are a few of my current choices and why:

My current choices and my thoughts:
DIAMOND #1: 2.066 H SI1 H&A (HCA 1.7)
Link: http://www.goodoldgold.com/2_066ct_h_si1_h&a.htm
My Thoughts: My perfect combination of color and clarity. The HCA score is pretty good; I've seen better B-Scope images, but this is definitely acceptable. Here's the minor kicker: Jonathan at GOG is holding this for me for a short time as I had him request this stone from a broker and run his great analysis on it (found it on the GOG H&A Search Engine). The size is as big as I'd want to go without being gaudy or overdone. $/carat is a good value ($7843/ct.) depite it's 2+ct. size.

DIAMOND #2: 1.82 F SI1 H&A (HCA 1.5)
Link: http://www.superbcert.com/Shop_By_Product/Diamond_Details.cfm/P/41937/N/1;1
My Thoughts: Clearly, color is this stone's strong suit. The size is fine, B-Scope images not as good as the 2.066, but I'm not an expert. $1400 (10%) less than the larger 2.066 stone, which helps a bit.

DIAMOND #3: 1.65 G VS1 H&A (HCA 1.4)
Link: http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_65ct_g_vs1_h&a.htm
My Thoughts: The expensive, but well rounded (hehe) G VS1. At $9019/ct., I'd be paying for it, but the BScope is great as is the H&A. A bit smaller than I wanted, but if it was still available I might make this one my own.

DIAMOND #4: 2.12 H SI1 H&A (HCA 0.3 !!)
Link: http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=2114535&ref=PS622
My Thoughts: By the HCA #s, a phenomenal stone. (Depth %: 60.3/Table %: 55/Crown angle: 34.0/Pavilion angle: 40.5). Photos, H&A photos, Sarin not readily available from DirtCheap. Seems like it could be as good if not better than the 2.066 but again, hard to say. A bit out of my $15k range, but if it's the one, I can splurge.

DIAMOND #5: 2.04 G SI1 H&A(see below) (HCA 1.6)
Link: From PriceScope/WF search engine, Bob sent me some photos.
My Thoughts: Notes from broker: "Round 2.04 G SI1 AGS 60.8 56 8.22–8.25x5.01 - no id id no $16005 $16547 ags0-h&a *** available Round 2.02 G SI1" So it appears to be an H&A, but I'd have to pay $70 to learn more about this stone.

So I do apologize for this long post, but it's my first and I had alot to say! Everyone's opinions are welcomed and appreciated for these stones. Thanks in advance for your help and I look forward to chatting with anyone interested in my posting.

Ryan

 

[caratgirl]

#1, then a tossup between #4 & #5, dependent on the additional results that you have requested. Sizes are really nice and the prices are all pretty much inline.

 

[aljdewey]

Welcome to PS, BigRy!

Wow, you've done your homework....that's awesome.

Personally, I wouldn't pay $70 just to learn more about a stone unless there weren't really any other options.....so I think I'd pass on #5. Personally, I'd likely eliminate #4 from consideration too because of the super-low HCA score. Several vendors I respect have noted that when the score gets too low, it often happens that the diamond lacks contrast....more monotone look, and I don't prefer that.

Of the remaining, IF the SI1 stones are eyeclean........I'd likely choose the 1.82 as top pick, and the 2.06 H that GOG is holding for you as a second pick. I'm not a fan of paying for what you cannot see, so I personally feel that going VS1 is overpaying for clarity.

I'd personally rather get the better color and sacrifice a bit of weight at this size range. My outlook would be different if we were talking about .89 vs. 1.15 ....then I'd vote for size. But in this particular case, the F stone is 1) closest to your budget, 2) closest to your dream stone wish list specs, and 3) less expensive....and it does give you the break of being just under 2 ct.

 

[Robyn12]

If I were you I'd go with #3 or else keep looking. I think with the larger stones (2+), you are paying for size that is not very important to you -- and with this stone (while I do think it's the best), you are paying for much more clarity than you care for. I'd hold out for a 1.75, G, VS2 H&A.

I have heard mixed things about H (especially if you are going with a white metal) and I've heard that SI1 is not always eye clean from every angle...

Considering that you have such a large budget, I think you can do better. Like I said -- IMO, hold out for a 1.75, G, VS2 H&A.

Just my 2 cents! Good luck to you whatever you decide!

 

[fisiogrl]

#1 or #2, assuming they are both eyeclean. you would then be choosing between colour or carat.

Both have nice HCA numbers. If that extra $1400 doesn't hurt - I would go for a bigger size!

 

[BigRy]

Thanks for everyone's comments thus far. I've checked out H stones at a few local jewelers and it seemed okay to me, but maybe I'll check out a few H stones again to be sure I'm comfortable with that color.

Interesting notes about the super-low HCA score--I've always been going with "lower is better"...

Does the F SI1 combination seem silly to anyone (matching that high a color with an SI clarity) on that SuperbCERT 1.82?

Also, if anyone sees a diamond out there that might also be up my alley, please post so I can check it out. Thanks!

R

 

[pqcollectibles]

F, SI1 doesn't seem silly. Clarity costs $$$$. Why pay for something you can't see??!!

The SC stone does concern me a bit. There are feathers near the edge on the Cert plot. I'd ask Barry for magnified pics of the feathers from the table view and from the girdle view.

#1 from GOG is a bit cluttered in the center, but if Rhino says it's eye clean it will be.

The link to #3 did not work. Maybe sold already??

And you have to ask for all the info on the DCD diamond. Stats are available on the site, but no Cert or pics.

Since we don't have the info on the diamond from WF available, and #3 might be sold already,..... I'd consider either #1 or #2 if #1 is eye clean and the feathers on #2 aren't a problem.

Edited to add: I got the link to #3 to work today. WooHoo!! I'd go with either #1 or #3. Forget worrying about those feathers near the edge! And don't pay for overkill on the VS!

 

[strmrdr]

#1 is the best of the lot imho.

 

[domer]

As BigRy's trusted friend, I feel compelled to weigh in on my thoughts/concerns and see what the rest of you guys think. I would say it's between #1, #2, and #3. Here are my thoughts on all of them:

#1 - Great size for a great price. Over 2ct is awesome, and I don't think an H from Jonathan is a problem at all. I purchased an H from him a month ago, and it is incredibly white. It's difficult to detect any color at all, and especially in normal conditions (you're not going to be viewing the diamond on her hand against a stark white background). As for the SI1, the inclusions look fairly insignificant. If Jonathan says it's eye-clean, I'm sure it's gorgeous. As for HCA, I may be calculating this wrong, but I got 1.2 for this stone using the PS cut advisor http://www.pricescope.com/cutadviser.asp. As you said though, I wouldn't base a decision on the specific HCA score...just use it to get you in the 'range'. As for the BScope images, I'm no expert, but images 1, 2, and 4 just don't seem to 'pop' like some of the other diamonds you're looking at (particularly #3). The Scint rating looks exceptable, but again, not like #3. Anyway, more on #3 in a moment.

#2 - I'm worried a bit about the feathers around the edge of this one as well. Having an eyeclean SI1 is great and all, but if the inclusions compromise the integrity of the diamond, and thus the durability, I would be concerned. I'm not positive, but I believe my insurance policy reads that replacement is not covered is damage to the diamond is a result of imperfections in the stone itself. If the diamond is struck at the right place with the right force along one of these feathers, would the insurance cover it? I'm not sure on this, but I would be wary of any inclusions I thought might affect the diamonds durability. Other than that the diamond looks great. I don't like how the photos of the SC diamonds don't seem as good or as "detailed" as the GOG pics.

#3 - Overall, an incredible rock. The only thing is, you're going to pay for the G-VS1 balance, and thus sacrifice size. The color light return and scint readings are awesome though...off the charts. Plain and simply a gorgeous diamond, if you can stomach the $/carat cost.

IMHO, it's all about #1 and #3. I think #3 would sparkle more, and look clean and tight. With #1, you get a significant size increase (not to take away for the enormity of the 1.65ct), but possibly with less sizzle. Then again, if you never see them side by side, will you ever know what you're missing?

Would Jonathan be willing to ship BOTH diamonds to an independent third party appraiser in the area so you can check them both out and make a call? I think if it was between shipping out both diamonds for a couple of days so you can make a decision, and you possibly holding off on your search until something else comes up (thus opening you up to other vendors), he'd oblige to ship both of them.

Finally, on holding off. My target was 1.75 G VS2, and I ended up with a 1.74 H VS1. I would have liked the lower color, and didn't need the VS1, but as you well know, you can only wait and look around for so long. There's no guarantee a 1.75 G VS2 that meets your high requirements will come along any time soon, and what are you missing out on by postponing your future even further till that comes along? And could you even tell the difference? My engagement was the single most incredible moment of my life, and the only thing I could think about afterwards was, "Why the hell did I wait so long???" All of these diamonds are amazing, and there is no right or wrong choice. She'll be floored with any of them. Go with your gut, and just pull the trigger, big dawg...

 

[Mara]

#1 baby!!!!! Yeah I love the size, the color, the clarity....the Bscope is actually quite excellent...I don't know if I believe the ones that are 'consistently' off the charts...this seems more realistic. Also, Jonathan himself has noted in the past that you shouldn't necessarily judge stones on their Bscope results--as long as the results are in the very good range...I don't think you need to split hairs on the Bscope results at that point.




The IS image is great, the IS2 is excellent obviously. Nothing is wrong with this stone. A tad bit more $$ but as you noted you can swing it. Plus you already had Jonathan invest some time (and you invested a bit of $$?) by bringing it in and running the tests on it..so you were *that* interested.




Keep in mind that the DCD diamond is not an H&A. Something to consider when comparing apples to apples. Doesn't mean it can't be a knockout of a stone, probably is with those #'s, but it's not as cherry as some of the other stones. Since we are completely splitting hairs here..figured I'd mention it.

Also take a peek at the other thread about loss of contrast under 0.3. I have heard it said that under 0.6 on the HCA...you lose a bit of the contrast in the stone. So don't know that I'd be as jazzed about 0.3 in general. I have also heard Brian at WhiteFlash say that he likes when the HCA score is 1.0--a nice medium.

Second choice would probably be #4. I am a size girl...I love larger stones. I think 2c is an excellent size. People will ask about SIZE...not color and clarity. The cut will make the thing amazing to look at and the size will really pop their eyeballs.

But have to say also that the SC stone is a close bid for 2nd...the size is really great, you've got an excellent color there, the images are very nice and angles are good too. Very nice. I may have to say SC would be my 2nd choice instead of #4 after all. Esp since it's a cheaper and true H&A.




As for H in a platinum setting, hands down you are going to be FINE FINE FINE. I have a smaller H Regent and it looks so darn white in platinum, honestly I don't know how anyone could think it has a tint. I also have a G e-ring stone and it looks very white to me as well. Plenty of people on here have H's (H&A's mind you) in platinum and are nothing but happy. I only know about 2 out of every 20 that would think an H is unacceptable. So I wouldn't worry a bit about it.

IMO nix the 9000/carat one...not worth it for G VS..really. You're not gaining enough in terms of color and you are gaining nothing in terms of eye-cleanliness and paying way more than the first one.




My two cents! All stones seem exceptionally lovely, you found a great bunch. But I love #1 and would choose #3 as my second choice, then possibly #4 but you would NEED to get images before purchase.

 

[fire&ice]

There is something to be said about going that full 2c mark. So, number 1 appeals to me.

My second choice would be the superbcert 1.8 stone. - doesn't have that mark but sizeable & very white.

What is you time frame?

 

[BigRy]

Hey All,

As always, I'm most gracious to everyone commenting here for the time you all take out of your day to help me find the diamond of Colleen's dreams! If anything, your posts have given me some confidence in my selections and bolstered the direction I was going with in terms of selection.

Here's where I'm at with this: the title of my post reads (mispelled

), "Diamon Evaluations - Pull the trigger or keep on searchin'?". And I've think I've addressed this by concluding that one of these diamonds will be the one that gets to ride on my future wife's hand. I'm down to #1, #2, #3.

• #4s is out of consideration considering I'm not able to get the needed information about this stone (stone is @ wholesaler who doesn't offer such services and DCD performs these only on their Signature Series).
• #5 is out since #1 shares very similar figures and I have all the info about the #1 GOG stone. Plus, it'd cost me shipping just to get the stone to Whiteflash for testing.
• #1 is still one my favorites. After reviewing GOG's BScope tutorial and seeing your comments, maybe I'm being to harsh on the BScope results. I plan on chatting with Jonathan at GOG today to ask him a few ?s about the BScope stuff and also the nature of the inclusions, which don't appear to be a problem.
• #2 Barry at SuperbCERT contacted me about this stone which I feel is as good a stone as #1. He clarified some issues surrounding the integrity of the diamond as it related to the feathers around the edge. I'll post the updated photos he provided concerning the inclusions. He also offered to send the diamond to my appraiser free of charge (roundtrip), which I think is a great offer. I'll let the pro appraiser make the call concerning any dangers to the stone. Good point by Domer tho, and one I hadn't considered. The "F" color is pretty awesome and I'm not paying toooo much more for it (by my figures of comparable G SI stones, 7.5% more).
• #3 is still in the running because of it's great overall balance and slightly superior cut to the others. The BScope is a bit better the GemAdvisor tool showed me better results. I may see if Jonathan can send this stone along with the 2.066 for me to review in person. Guess it depends on how much difference I perceive in 1.65 to 2.066 (17% difference in table area).

It's funny, sometimes I get too wrapped up in the raw numbers and swing from one diamond to the next based on the slightest of factors like the variance in crown angles or table size symmetry. I certainly wouldn't buy a $15,000 car or truck just based on online research and it's right-rear leg room, so I've decided I'm going to need to see these stones in person to make the final call, just like I'd test drive any car before purchasing. I'll contact Nancy, the local appraiser in the East Bay to set something up. I'll have to chat about settings, boxes and the like after I can get the diamond picked out. My plan is to purchase the setting from my local jeweler and have them set it, even if it costs a bit more than online. I think that's the fair way for the jeweler to make something on this ring other than the setting cost.

Jonathan has been very accomidating thus far so I don't think he'll have a problem sending at least one of his stones to my appraiser at no cost to me.

One last point that the women of this board can help me out with: a few of you definitely love the size of a 2ct stone, but would others consider a rock this big over the top?! I don't want Colleen to feel weird about something this large--as if she's trying to prove something or feel better than others. I'm looking into this size category simply because I want this to be her dream diamond, nothing else. Would other women consider a $15000 diamond on a 25 year old to be excessive? Well, my overanalysis has commenced. Check out the inclusion info below if you want. Thanks again!

Ryan

 

[BigRy]

Sent to me by Barry at SuperbCERT who notes, "they do not break the surface of the diamond, nor do they pose any threat to the structural integrity of this diamond, period." He also made a good point that the grader which makes this an SI stone is off to the side and not under the table like many SI stones are. I'll likely take him up on his offer to ship it to an appraiser to see what she has to say about the inclusions.

Ryan

 

[Giangi]

My first choice would be the supercert F/SI 1. This is a clever combo: colorless and eye-clean without an outrangeous price tag --in fact it seems to be fairly priced and represents a great value. My second pick would be stone #1, but considering the price point & quality, I would go for the F.

 

[valeria101]

Just a quick note: the difference between BScope and GemAdvisor results on #1 and #3 are not different enough to indicate a certain actual difference between the stones. These have the same performance, given the respective tools. I would have said #1 or #5 if all these choices would not have already been made. The stones have a good chance to be just as attractive (unless you really want to see those arrows straight and black via Scope (in the stone those minuscule details setting apart a "true" H&A on them would fade away), these could be very good brothers in person, and price may make #5 attractive. Oh, and if 7-10% of the cst of the diamond is not an issue... $70?

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 1/23/2004 2:34:52 PM BigRy wrote:

Hey All,

I'm looking into this size category simply because I want this to be her dream diamond, nothing else. Would other women consider a $15000 diamond on a 25 year old to be excessive? Well, my overanalysis has commenced. Check out the inclusion info below if you want. Thanks again!

Ryan----------------

It is not excessive *IF* you can afford it & still have money for the necessity of building your life together. If I recall correctly, Domer fiancee is sportin a large diamond - how does she feel about the size of her stone?

What has your girlfriend hinted at? 2carats is a large stone for a 25 year old; but, it's not excessive (except for the money issue above) if you are in circles of friends who have large diamonds & in an area where it is exceptable.

 

[BigRy]

Like I said, it *has* been a long time that we've been dating (6+ years), so she has hinted jokingly that "it better be big!". We have a good laugh but there's probably some truth to what she mentions. Domer's fiance loves her ring, which is also a larger stone.

As far as the money issue, I probably am going well over what most people with my financial profile would do, but I rationalize it this way: I've been specifically saving up to buy something awesome for years. Luckily this preparation has come in handy considering I have recently enbarked upon several dollar draining activities like start a small business and move to the San Francisco area. I took a hard look at my liquid income and am limiting myself to no more that 25% of this 'stash'. So considering this, I don't anticipate that this purchase will hinder us as a couple from purchases we'll want to make together like housing, furniture, wedding costs, etc.

So Fire&Ice, you make an interesting point that it all depends on context.

Ryan

 

[Mara]

Got a meeting in a few minute but wanted to chime and say that I don't think 2c on a 25 year old is a big deal here in the Bayarea. So many people here have big diamonds. My girlfriend works at Adobe and notes that all the girls in her marketing and events departments have at least 2c plus rings. I know alot of other girls who have between 1.25 and 2c as the norm. So I think for this area, it's not inappropriate. Plus if she has waited a long time, she will be ECSTATIC to be engaged to you...AND have this amazing rock.

I think you're doing good. I think actually you'd be fine with either the SC stone which is still a great size, or the 2c one.

Both look great. BTW Nancy may charge you for sending the stones from the vendor to her...I think someone on here recently noted that because of the extra risk in having the stone sent from vendor to her and having her be responsible for possession, she charges $50 per stone or something extra. Just FYI in case she hits you with that cost. I would definitely still use her.

Good luck, let us know!

 

[someguy]

I just wanted to add something about the colour. I just recently bought a beautiful 1ct I color diamond from GOG. I had it set in a temp white gold setting, and it's just about impossible to see any colour when viewing it from above. From the side you might be able to tell, but only if you place the diamond against a white background or comparing it to another D. The other day we were looking at settings and the lady helping us thought that it was in the D-F range!! LOL! You should have seen her face when I informed her that it was actually an I.

As for the brilliancescope results, I have to tell you that you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between two diamonds that scored well. By well, I mean in the high to very high range. To see this for myself, I went down to GOG and compared this diamond

VH+,VH+,VH+

to this one

H-,VH+,H+

and I have to say that I really couldn't see any difference in the beauty of the diamonds. Both were spectacular. Maybe the VH+,VH+,VH+ was indeed more spectacular, but I don't think that these can be seen with the untrained eye. So as long as your diamond scores within the VH range, I assure you that you will be more that happy!

Good luck!

 

[copernicus]

Hey BigRy,

I just read your original post and it sounds EXACTLY what I was looking for over the past three weeks. I have considered 2, 3, and 4.
I too was waiting around for a 1.8-1.9 G eyeclean SI1 (missed on at GOG about 3 weeks ago). With all the data on-line I think it is easy to get lost in the numbers/reports.
I am sure any of those stones will make your GF very happy (mine has been waiting 3+ years).
This morning (before I read your thread) I pulled the trigger on #3. Hopefully this will make your decision easier!

#1 looks wonderful.

peace,
CW

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 1/23/2004 2:34:52 PM BigRy wrote:

One last point that the women of this board can help me out with; a few of you definitely love the size of a 2ct stone, but would others consider a rock this big over the top?! I don't want Colleen to feel weird about something this large--as if she's trying to prove something or feel better than other

----------------

Well, Ryan, I'm quite sure I'll be in the minority on this......but yeah, I'd consider a 2 ct over the top for me. I own an exceptionally well-cut 1.25....which looks as big as the mall variety 1.5 carats.....and THAT gets more attention than I ever dreamed it would. I sincerely don't want anything bigger.....and in deference to the "never say never" phrase, I'd wager 99.999999% that I won't ever want a larger stone.

I know everyone here is size, size, size.....but I truly think there's a point (that's different for every woman) where something crosses from WOW into gaudy. Only you can determine for yourself what that is. For me, a 2 carat stone would be overkill.....and I know I'm not alone in that. Mara did a poll a while back, and the most desired size in an e-ring was 1 to 1.5 cts.

Having said all of that, though, it sounds as though YOUR GF wants a big stone, and so it really only matters what *she* wants. Either stone will fit the "big enough" bill, so it's really a toss-up.

 

[Mara]

Boy where is Kevin with that analysis of age, geo-location & coresponding diamond carat size when you need him! Keevvinn!!

 

[BigRy]

Okay, so I'll eventually be having both stones sent to Nancy Tracy in Walnut Creek (hopefully early next week).

A FEW CONCERNS
Something that I noticed about both #1/#2 stones that I'd like some feedback on. Some consider crown angles higher than 34.5 to be undesirable. The 2.066 has a crown angle of 34.9 and pav. angle of 40.9. Similarly, the 1.82 SuperbCERT shows a crown angle of 34.9 and pav. angle of 40.8. It's my understanding that high crown angles make the diamond show smaller, have lower brilliance but high fire. That doesn't make too much sense to me, so maybe my notes are wrong. Seems like the steeper the crown, the bigger the table will be.

Also, check out the IdealScope/LightScope on the 1.82 vs. the 2.066. On the 1.82, you can make out some asymetrical triangles in the outer edge. I doubt if this affects anything or takes it out of the running for an H&A but I figured I'd run it by this group since some of you have a great eye for this.

1.82 IdealScope - http://www.goodoldgold.com/2_066ct_h_si1_h&a.htm
2.066 LightScope -
http://www.superbcert.com/images/products/Product_Instance_1_1_Attribute_21/832.jpg

So #3 is no more; guess that narrows the field down...thus the perils of posting links here. Who knows, maybe just coincidence but this stone was on GOG for about 8 weeks I think until this post.

Everyone have a great weekend!
R

 

[hoorray]

I'm with Al... I had a 1.25 stone as my original e-ring at 27, and it was plenty big. 2.0c would have been over-the-top for me and my lifestyle at the time.

When these questions come up I tend to vote with the slightly smaller, better quality stones, depending on the tradeoffs. (I don't believe in D or VVS stones, unless money is no object -- I think you are paying a steep $$ for something you can't see.) I happen to like knowing it has a certain quality level, and I'm color sensitive.

But...at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what we would want. It matters what Colleen would want and feel good about. She says "it better be big"

. Big is typically viewed relative to her peer group and lifestyle. None of the stones you are considering are small. In this range, "big" matters most if her peers' are as big or bigger.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 1/23/2004 8:48:13 PM lop wrote:

I'm with Al... I had a 1.25 stone as my original e-ring at 27, and it was plenty big.

----------------

Lop, I'm just getting my original stone (1.25) at almost age 40!!! and it's still plenty big.....

However, as Mara observed, it's very true that larger stones are more the norm in the Bay Area......so Ryan may want to take that into consideration too.

In my book, either stone (1.82 or 2.06) more than satisfies the BIG requirement. It doesn't have to be BIGGEST....it has to be BIG (according to Colleen!).....hehehehe

 

[hoorray]

Like I said Al,...it's about lifestyle (which includes peer group along with lots of other things), and what works for the individual. Enjoy your beautiful 1.24! That's actually exactlly what my original stone was -- just not a super ideal! Shrinkage + quality just finally set in for me after plenty of years!

 

[Mara]

BigRy...actually the guy who just bought the #3 stone had noted he bought it this morning, BEFORE he read your post about your stones for consideation...that he had already been considering the same stones you had for a few weeks...small world!!

That is why I always say...put the most serious contenders on HOLD even if for a day or two to ensure it doesn't get sold!

I think both 1.80 and 2c stones would be amazing in person, and plenty big! Send them to Nancy, drive and see them in person. Then make your decision.




Don't fret about the angles, honestly...both stones have excellent information. The images again, splitting hairs. It may come down to which one looks more beautiful and lucky you, you can see with your naked eye when you visit Nancy.