Diamond comparison - any advice?

[microcarter]

I looked at 2 diamonds yesterday. Both are marquis. Here are the stats.

GIA Dossier
.78 carat
9.20 x 5.10 x 3.04 mm
Depth 59.6
Table 61
Girdle - thin to medium, faceted
culet none
Polish - very good
Symmetry - very good
Clarity - SI1
Color - F
Fluorescence - none
twinning wisp, feather

IGL (ever heard of these guys?)
.71 carat
8.74x4.56 mm
Depth 62.3
Table 58.8
Pav Depth 43.4
Polish - very good
Symmetry - very good
Clarity - VS2
Color - G

When I looked at them with 10x magnification the first one had what looked like a twinning wisp across the center of the table. I could not personally tell where the inclusions were in the second. Both are visually stunning and eye clean but when we compared them side by side, I thought the first one with the inclusion across the table looked just as pretty as the other one and I liked the shape better. Also, the SI1 was $800 cheaper! What would you do? Is a twinning wisp across the table that big of a deal? Thanks for your advice!

 

[oldminer]

The shape of the first one sounds nicer. A bit longer, so it will look like a heavier carat weight stone to the eye.
The twinning wisp is probably not going to be a problem. SOunds like the first stone is the one...

 

[valeria101]

writing in the same time !


The second stone has a "very thick" girdle, doesn't it? I definitely like these proportions close to 2:1

Not much helps build an image of the stones based on numbers like this... you get an impression of proportiosn andthis is it.

The desirable girdle measure (non-thick that is) and somewhat larger size woudl have made me prefer the first "by numbers" too. Also, give that these stones are quite elongated, I am not sure it hakes sense to have a small table (below 60%) for them - unless improved brilliance gives a good argument. But this last note really is just my taste. Marquises are not among the most brilliant cuts - and since the shape is all that matters here, a table 3mm wide looks odd to me.

Since you say that the first stone does not show inclusions without magnification, this is it ! (my 0.2 worth, of course).