Down to the last two!

[rocknooby]

Hi everyone!

I'm about to take the plunge and buy my first diamond engagement ring. I've narrowed my search down to two stones that fall within my price range and the specs that I wanted.

I've been to numerous jewelry stores, but in all honesty, I'm looking for the best bang for the buck. I've been trying to find something just shy of 1ct to avoid the price spike, as well as trying to find something that REALLY sparkles! I've decided on buying online, as the prices are much more reasonable, and there is a solid 30-day return policy if I'm not satisfied with my purchase.

That being said, I have a few questions:

- Is the difference between a .96ct and a .92ct negligible?
- Which diamond should I buy?
- I've read that "Fire" is best seen in low-light, but will an excellently rated (1.7) FIC diamond really sparkle in bright light as well?

Thanks so much, in advance, for all your help!!!

Diamond 1:

Carat - .96
Color - G
Clarity - SI1
Cut - Ideal (GIA)
Polish - Excellent (GIA)
Symmetry - Very Good (GIA)
Fluorescence - None
Table - 58%
Depth - 61.3%
Crown Angle - 35.5%
Pavilion Angle - 41.0%
Cutlet - None
Clarity Characteristics - Crystal, Feather

HCA Rating - 3.9, Very Good, "Worth buying if the price is right"

Price - $4,594 USD

Diamond 2:

Carat - .92
Color - G
Clarity - SI1
Cut - Ideal (GIA)
Polish - Excellent (GIA)
Symmetry - Excellent (GIA)
Fluorescence - None
Table - 55%
Depth - 61.9%
Crown Angle - 36.0%
Pavilion Angle - 40.6%
Cutlet - None
Clarity Characteristics - Twining Wisp (What is that??)

HCA Rating - 1.7, Excellent, "Within FIC range"

Price - $4,463 USD

Both diamonds are Round Brilliant cut.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Gosh, I am not loving either of these. I just posted some in the .9 range on another thread that are better cut than these. But you need to give the diameter measurements if you want people to compare the size of the two stones you just listed.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Use this search tool and put in excellent-excellent for cut, and check GIA and AGS for labs, and the color and clarity range you want.

https://www.pricescope.com/sift.aspx

This is the only one I'm seeing close to your specs and ideal cut:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/5133/

 

[brian.hauth]

I''m no expert, but it should say the dimensions in mm in the specs somewhere, it shouldn''t be very noticable at all in size. The Table/Depth/Crown Angle/Pavillion Angle seem better on the .96 ct, but the Symmetry is VG instead of excellent on the .92. I''m not sure what the twining wisp is.

Are these diamonds through an online vendor like Whiteflash, James Allen, Good Old Gold, or Blue Nile? If there''s idealscope images available for both, you should post those on here to get some additional advice. You could also call the vendor and if they have them available have them look at both and ask for their personal opinion on each. I bought an e-ring at Whiteflash and they were very helpful and very honest with you about which one truly looks better, regardless of price. Whiteflash is incredibly good to work with. That should help a little..

 

[Dancing Fire]

i like #2....don''t see many FIC .

 

[rocknooby]

Date: 11/11/2008 10:25:15 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Gosh, I am not loving either of these. I just posted some in the .9 range on another thread that are better cut than these. But you need to give the diameter measurements if you want people to compare the size of the two stones you just listed.

The measurements for the diamonds I listed are:

.96ct - 6.33-5.37 x 3.89mm

.92ct - 6.22-6.26 x 3.86mm

I''m curious as to what you mean by better ''cut?'' These are both certified ''Ideal'' by GIA. Are you referring to the actual proportions?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 11/11/2008 10:57:16 PM
Author: rocknooby

Date: 11/11/2008 10:25:15 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006


Gosh, I am not loving either of these. I just posted some in the .9 range on another thread that are better cut than these. But you need to give the diameter measurements if you want people to compare the size of the two stones you just listed.

The measurements for the diamonds I listed are:

.96ct - 6.33-5.37 x 3.89mm

.92ct - 6.22-6.26 x 3.86mm

I'm curious as to what you mean by better 'cut?' These are both certified 'Ideal' by GIA. Are you referring to the actual proportions?

Well, GIA doesn't grade "ideal" at all. Your vendor may be applying that label, but excellent is the highest GIA gives. Most of the time we give guidelines of 34-35 for the crown angle which is what we usually see in AGS Ideal cut, which is the strictest grade. You can find these stones within GIA excellent, too. It's just that GIA excellent is a much broader range and there are stones that are better than others within that range.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Of those two, I''d choose the .92. But I''d have them look at the inclusion (twining wisp) and just make sure the stone is eyeclean from the top and sides (if the stone will be visible from the side once it is set).

 

[rocknooby]

Well, GIA doesn''t grade ''ideal'' at all. Your vendor may be applying that label, but excellent is the highest GIA gives. Most of the time we give guidelines of 34-35 for the crown angle which is what we usually see in AGS Ideal cut, which is the strictest grade. You can find these stones within GIA excellent, too. It''s just that GIA excellent is a much broader range and there are stones that are better than others within that range.

Sorry, I did mean "Excellent" by GIA.

Would you suggest that neither of these are a great choice?

Here are the GIA certificate''s for both of the rocks I listed:

.96ct - http://www.bluenile.com/pop_print_cert.jsp?pid=LD01439265&cert_type=gia

.92ct - http://www.bluenile.com/pop_print_cert.jsp?pid=LD01447317&cert_type=gia

 

[rocknooby]

Hmm, I did some digging on the twinning wisp, and it seems that it''s only visible under a microscope.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/classic.php?page=gallery_of_inclusions.htm

 

[Love4L]

I am no expert, that's why I trust the GIA report
At some point you'll just have to say THAT'S IT! NO MORE!
cuz there're million of choices out there, we can't possibly keep looking all the time... much like finding a bf/gf, the one is the one
Good luck and have fun~!

 

[rocknooby]

Date: 11/12/2008 12:12:03 AM
Author: Love4L
I am no expert, that''s why I trust the GIA report

At some point you''ll just have to say THAT''S IT! NO MORE!

cuz there''re million of choices out there, we can''t possibly keep looking all the time... much like finding a bf/gf, the one is the one

Good luck and have fun~!

Haha... that''s as down to earth a statement as it gets. Totally needed that wake up call right now too!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/11/2008 11:13:15 PM
Author: rocknooby

Well, GIA doesn''t grade ''ideal'' at all. Your vendor may be applying that label, but excellent is the highest GIA gives. Most of the time we give guidelines of 34-35 for the crown angle which is what we usually see in AGS Ideal cut, which is the strictest grade. You can find these stones within GIA excellent, too. It''s just that GIA excellent is a much broader range and there are stones that are better than others within that range.

Sorry, I did mean ''Excellent'' by GIA.

Would you suggest that neither of these are a great choice?

Here are the GIA certificate''s for both of the rocks I listed:

.96ct - http://www.bluenile.com/pop_print_cert.jsp?pid=LD01439265&cert_type=gia

.92ct - http://www.bluenile.com/pop_print_cert.jsp?pid=LD01447317&cert_type=gia

I agree with DS, the 92 could be a nice stone and falls within fiery ideal cut range, which some seek out. Check it is eyeclean to your standards with the BN rep though.