Eeny-meeny-miney-moe ... for diamond studs ...

[cutey TT]

Hi Everyone.

I''ve been working with Renee at WF to pick out some diamonds for my first pair of diamond studs. I picked out 2 matching F SI1s, but then 1 sold

, so we settled on the remaining F SI1 and a matching E SI1 (both expert selection). Then while I was trying to decide which setting I wanted, another expert selection stone popped up, and this 3rd one is significantly lower in price to make me reconsider the original set (Renee just emailed me to say it''s eye-clean as well).

Ho Hum, don''t know what to do ... so I thought I''d solicit your expert opinions ... BTW, DH and I saw stones 1 and 2 in person with Brian, and they are really beautiful ...

Here are the stats on the individual stones ...

Stone #1:
1.120 F SI1
Measurements: 6.75-6.76-4.09 mm
Table: 56%
Depth: 60.6%
Pavilion: 43.0%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Crown: 15.5%
Crown Angle: 34.9
Polish / Symmetry: Excellent / Excellent
Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted
HCA: 1.4

Stone #2:
1.116 E SI1
Measurements: 6.73-6.76-4.08 mm
Table: 56%
Depth: 60.4%
Pavilion: 42.9%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Crown: 15.3%
Crown Angle: 34.8
Polish / Symmetry: Excellent / Excellent
Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick, Faceted
HCA: 1.3

Stone #3:
1.128 F SI1
Measurements: 6.75-6.80-4.11 mm
Table: 54.7%
Depth: 60.6%
Pavilion: 43.0%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Crown: 15.7%
Crown Angle: 34.7
Polish / Symmetry: Excellent / Excellent
Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted
HCA: 1.3

Here''s a link to diamonds 2 and 3, so you can see the magnified pics and IS images: http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/Matching_Compare.aspx?oldID=2416684&newID=2416693

I don''t have a link to stone #1 anymore because like stone #2, it''s been turned off. So, the choice is either go with stones #1 and #2 (original plan) or stones #2 and #3 (in the link). Stone #1 is the most expensive.

They''re all really beautiful, so I feel really lucky to even have this choice. Thanks for your help!

 

[Shay37]

Obviously, I could not see #1, but 2 and 3 look like twins from their IS. If three and two are the cheaper, and all three are eyeclean, that equals a no-brainer for me. I would take 2 and 3. HTH

shay

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Was #1 an ACA or something? I can''t figure out why it would cost more than the E SI1. But those look really nice! Lucky YOU!

 

[cutey TT]

I found it. Here is the link for stone #1:

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2318229.htm


Shay - That''s exactly what my husband said. Renee suggested #1 and #3 since they''re both Fs and besides their tables, their other #s are almost exactly the same...but I was thinking #1 and #2 since their tables match and their measurements are almost spot on or #2 and #3 since those are the lowest priced. Also, Leon who took a look at all 3 stones today said that they all match just fine.

Renee has been so awesome and patient with me through this whole buying process. I told her I''d call in the morning with my final decision, and she said that was fine. She told me to sleep on it...hehe.

 

[Sundial]

Renee is a doll to work with and I don''t think you could go wrong with any of the diamonds you posted. I would just stick with the cheaper two if it were me. I don''t think you will notice slight variations in color and table size for earrings. However you choose to go you are going to have one killer pair of earrings!!!

 

[C Smith]

It''s a tough call for me as all the stones look fairly good on paper. I''m going with 1 & 3 simply because they are both F''s . Other than that, I have no rationale. If the original set you saw is beautiful and the price is within reason, buy them! The numbers don''t tell the whole story when it comes to beauty.

 

[cutey TT]

Just an update: I decided to go with #2 and #3 (the two lowest priced stones). Since they''re all eye-clean, according to WF, I''m pretty sure I can''t go wrong. This way, with setting and all, I come in just below my budget.

Here are the 40x magnified photos pasted side-by-side ... Thanks for your help!