Down to Two - Seeking advice

[NYCtoFlorida]

Hi, I have found this forum a great resource in my search. I am torn between two RBs and was hoping to get some of your opinions. Here are the two...

#1:
1.66 ct
Color: H
Clarity: VS2
HCA: 1.3
Table: 57
Depth: 60.7
Crown: 34.5
Pavilion: 40.8
GIA Cut: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry Excellent

#2:
1.50 ct
Color: F
Clarity: SI1 - eyeclean
HCA: 2.1
Table: 58
Depth: 62
Crown: 35
Pavilion: 40.9
GIA Cut: Excellent
Polish: VG
Symmetry VG

The second one is about $1000 cheaper. Neither the size nor the color differences were all that noticeable to me. Both looked great but I just am torn whether I put more weighting on the color or the HCA score. Both the stones are at a B&M retailer that is a owned by a family friend.

Thanks in advance for the advice!

 

[Ellen]

I'm wondering how you ran the 2nd through the HCA, since you don't have the crown and pavilion angles. Also, GIA rounds their numbers, so I'm not sure why the first has a CA of 34.3, should be 34.5....Are you sure you typed correctly? And that they are really GIA, and not AGS?

 

[NYCtoFlorida]

Sorry, I just found the other stones numbers, I thought I had misplaced them, and corrected the first stones crown angle.

Thanks!

 

[dmus]

Date: 5/1/2008 4:38:05 PM
Author: Ellen
I''m wondering how you ran the 2nd through the HCA, since you don''t have the crown and pavilion angles. Also, GIA rounds their numbers, so I''m not sure why the first has a CA of 34.3, should be 34.5....Are you sure you typed correctly? And that they are really GIA, and not AGS?

I knew GIA rounds the lgf. Is it true it rounds the C and Pav angles also?

I like #1 the best because of the ideal angles and nice depth. It''s slightly larger (ct) and probably faces up bigger than the other which had a larger depth 62%. Do you have the other dimensions? I''d pay the extra $1,000.

since you''ve seen both it sounds like they perform similarily and the H is plenty white icey. That''s personal choice but something I myself look for. F SI1 is very nice eyeclean but I think the cut is the determining factor for me. #1. IS or ASETs would be nice to finalize comparison.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/1/2008 4:53:55 PM
Author: NYCtoFlorida
Sorry, I just found the other stones numbers, I thought I had misplaced them, and corrected the first stones crown angle.

Thanks!

lol Sorry, but are you sure you typed the PA on the second one correctly? It should be rounded, to either 40.8, or 41....


And dmus, yes, they round C&P angles too.

 

[NYCtoFlorida]

Sorry, you are right. I wrote everything down on lots of stones and got some numbers mixed up and had trouble reading others.

Here is the GIA measurements for #2

Depth: 61.7
Table: 59
Crown: 35
Pavilion: 40.8

 

[Ellen]

That's ok!

I definitely pick the first one, it's got great, safe numbers/specs, nice color/clarity combo, nothing not to like about it! And it's a tad bigger to boot.

 

[dmus]

Thanks Ellen. Learn a little more each and everytime I log on. So I think that means 40.84 is rounded to 40.8 and 40.86 is 40.9. No need to answer if I''m right.

Still like #1 the best. I assume these stones are priced at around $12,000-14,000 so $1000 is about an 8% price increment for a 10% larger ct with a niticeable proportionally larger spread and better cut. If the H is white icey I like it.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/1/2008 5:11:50 PM
Author: dmus
Thanks Ellen. Learn a little more each and everytime I log on. So I think that means 40.84 is rounded to 40.8 and 40.86 is 40.9. No need to answer if I'm right.

Still like #1 the best. I assume these stones are priced at around $12,000-14,000 so $1000 is about an 8% price increment for a 10% larger ct with a niticeable proportionally larger spread and better cut. If the H is white icey I like it.

No, they don't round to 40.9.

This link will shed some light on the subject for you.

 

[dmus]

Date: 5/1/2008 5:19:20 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 5/1/2008 5:11:50 PM
Author: dmus
Thanks Ellen. Learn a little more each and everytime I log on. So I think that means 40.84 is rounded to 40.8 and 40.86 is 40.9. No need to answer if I''m right.

Still like #1 the best. I assume these stones are priced at around $12,000-14,000 so $1000 is about an 8% price increment for a 10% larger ct with a niticeable proportionally larger spread and better cut. If the H is white icey I like it.

No, they don''t round to 40.9.

This link will shed some light on the subject for you.

Ellen - Read it but am more confused than ever. What I think the thread says is that say the CA is 34.4. GIA reports it correctly as 34.4 on the cert but the facetware software when calculating cut rounds to 34.5 and gives an erroneous cut grade rating. Does this make sense? Sorry if I sound stupid but I''m really confused.

 

[Ellen]

Ok, maybe I should have just said, GIA takes the average and rounds to the nearest fifth, +/- .02 degrees error. If you want to do a search, there are other threads, but that's it in a nutshell.

i.e. a 34.5 CA could be 34.3 or 34.7

 

[dmus]

Date: 5/1/2008 7:06:48 PM
Author: Ellen
Ok, maybe I should have just said, GIA takes the average and rounds to the nearest fifth, +/- .02 I think you meant +-.2 degrees error. If you want to do a search, there are other threads, but that''s it in a nutshell.

i.e. a 34.5 CA could be 34.3 or 34.7

Thanks Ellen! It certainly makes working with GIA certs that much more uncertain. I know EGL are more lenient on color clarity, but do they do this sort of non sense with angles and percents on their certs as well?

Sorry NYC for my rambling.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I would also choose #1...better cut and clarity, larger.