GOG video - which is the better stone?

[beaujolais]

GOG video - which is the better stone?

http://www.vimeo.com/7922023

Thanks.

 

[Lurchie]

I didn''t notice much difference performance-wise, but I prefer square to elongated stones so I prefer the one on the right. It also looks a smidge bigger to me, probably because of the shape.

 

[chamois]

There doesn''t appear to be a lot of difference in the performance between the two, if any. The stone on the left seems to me to look more rectangular, and the one on the right looks a tad more square. Which stone''s shape appeals to your eyes more ?

 

[Collee]

Very tough choice . I watched the video 3x and honestly cannot pick a hands-down winner as they are both beautiful and SO similar. Although they are both the same color IMO the 1.45ct appeared whiter in the B&P Scintillation view. I also really like the small flashes of blue and teal . In re: to which is a better stone? BOTH! Not the answer you wanted to hear but since they are so extremely similar it is difficult to choose.

 

[beaujolais]

Thanks Cham & Collee !!

I appreciate your input. I still can''t sort these two out.

Anyone? Help?

 

[chamois]

I appreciate the difficulty here, I would have the same problem deciding, this is a really tough call. Both stones are almost identical where performance is concerned, IMO the only real disernable difference is in size/shape. Is your descision based solely on the optics or would you prefer the VS1 over the VS2 and is the price difference a factor ? Ask Jonathan if one of the stones has a slight edge on the other ?

 

[chamois]

Another thought - is a smaller table a factor in your descision ?

 

[Hest88]

Gorgeous. It''s probably just the placement, but the one on the left seemed whiter but I preferred the one on the right, which seemed to have more character to me.

 

[beaujolais]

Thanks Cham & Hest

--- Is your descision based solely on the optics or would you prefer the VS1 over the VS2 and is the price difference a factor ?---

Optics. Price matters a bit but these are pretty close, anyway.

---Ask Jonathan if one of the stones has a slight edge on the other ? ---

He says they are both gorgeous but will ask him further. Thanks, great idea.

I'm a nut for smaller tables but am really just picking for optics. (Now, if it had fluorescence, that would be a big positive influence but (alas) no.

Oh, a real important thing - which has a chunkier facet look?

(Does the lighting or something in this video seem different than the lighting in the other GOG videos? AKA, I think this is making it a bit harder to figure out.)

Thanks, again.

 

[sunseeker101]

Both gorgeous stones -- I think the one on the right has chunkier facets and better scintillation effects. I think the other has a very slightly greater brilliance level between the two. Overall I''d go for the right-hand stone (without any reference to its size or clarity, because I can''t remember!

) due to its shape and scintillation.

 

[chrono]

Tough choice but I’ll pick the right for several reasons; namely I am partial to square cushions and it has that little extra something going on to my eyes. Too bad neither have fluoro or that would influence my decision greatly.

In terms of optical performance, I think both are about equal. Sorry I’m of not much help but blame it on Jon for making every single OMC such a stunner.

 

[clgwli]

It would be very tough for me to decide as well. I personally like more square shapes vs rectangular but there is something going on in the left one that drew me in as well. I am not sure I would be able to decide. My husband would probably pick based on price knowing him, but me I''d probably have to flip a coin

Good luck deciding. Both look beautiful to me!

 

[redfaerythinker]

You could buy both and make earrings!

But in all seriousness. I was immediately drawn to the right one... no idea why. But there you go.

 

[tyty333]

Wow, tough call....I like the shape of the second one in the video...but under plain lighting it seems like
I saw more flashes off the first one. Under all other lighting conditions the flashes seem to be equal.

I would probably go with the second one due more to the shape and all else being fairly equal.

 

[Collee]

I agree about asking Jon for his input. You can also ask him if he could shoot a follow-up "diamond in holders window view" or "tweezer shot" video.

 

[ImpatientOne]

I''m the oppiste - I prefer the more elongated look, so I vote for the one on the left!!!

 

[Arcadian]

Its too hard to choose!

My eyes keep going right for the left one, though I do like the right one too. The differences to me look VERY small. Seems to me based on what I can see, that this would be a case of choosing whatever my wallet could handle.

-A

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 12/2/2009 7:50:48 AM
Author: Chrono
Tough choice but I’ll pick the right for several reasons; namely I am partial to square cushions and it has that little extra something going on to my eyes. Too bad neither have fluoro or that would influence my decision greatly.

In terms of optical performance, I think both are about equal. Sorry I’m of not much help but blame it on Jon for making every single OMC such a stunner.

The 1.46 has less depth and faces up a little larger, hands down winner for me. Check if both are Eye Clean and same color, lower colors have a range ask Jon to compare the two for you in front of a white background if the shape isn't a factor.

 

[nkarma]

If I couldn't decide because they really are identical except the shape somewhat and I didn't care too much about shape which it sounds like you don't I would go with the 1.46 because it's a few hundred cheaper and then go on a weekend away with my SO with the difference.

I like rectangular OMCs more and I think they both qualify as that. Because the 1.45 is a bit more rectangular it looks ever so slightly bigger. Their optical performance is absolutely identical. You asked about which was chunkier? They are absolutely identical...all the GOG august cushions are to my eye and I have watched every video and will have mine back in 2 weeks once it is set.

Whatever you do, put one of these babies on hold quick.

 

[beaujolais]

Thanks you soooo much, all, for your help.

Oh, btw, GOG redid the video and you can see the differences in the stones much, much, much better now.

Guess what I just reserved - the 1.46, K, VS2 (the more square one, on the right)

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6741/

 

[beaujolais]

--- Too bad neither have fluoro or that would influence my decision greatly. ---

Ah, great minds think alike. You better believe it.

I think John Pollard once called those like us "fluoro groupies".

----

One day, I will own something with strong blue fluorescence.

Ever notice, though, most stones you find with the fluorescence you love, are

for one reason or another. Or if not they are lovely but way out of your price range. !?!

 

[beaujolais]

Nkarma: Do you have a link you yours? I''d love to see it.

 

[chrono]

I almost purchased an OMC from Jon with strong blue fluoro...but it was too small. I think it barely broke the 1 ct mark and I wanted something significantly larger. The yummy thing about it is that it is a real antique cut OMC that happened to be very well cut, good enough for GOG to offer a lifetime warranty/upgrade on it. I think for my final upgrade, I’m going to hold out for something with strong blue fluoro.

 

[beaujolais]

-- I think for my final upgrade, I’m going to hold out for something with strong blue fluoro. ---

Same here.

Oh, Jon, - please note.

 

[chrono]

Date: 12/3/2009 9:57:32 AM
Author: sonomacounty
-- I think for my final upgrade, I’m going to hold out for something with strong blue fluoro. ---

Same here.

Oh, Jon, - please note.

 

[nkarma]

Date: 12/2/2009 5:45:55 PM
Author: sonomacounty
Nkarma: Do you have a link you yours? I'd love to see it.

I didn't take any real pictures (just crappy camera phone that I don't even know how to get off my phone) before I sent it to Leon to be set. It should arrive week of 12/21 and I will definitely post tons of pics on here.

Sonoma, you got a perfect diamond. Right at that 1.5 mark and a K!!! Mine is an L. I think K's are my sweet spot though, they have the perfect balance of white and warmth to me. Mine does have medium blue fluoro though. Because I only had the diamond for less than 24 hours, I have yet to see what the raves are about. Maybe it's because mine is only medium that I can't see anything. I hope it really adds to the stone though.

Do you live in sonoma??? I am in the bay area. Sonoma, is my fave place for wine tasting. Gonna take a day trip up there after christmas with fiance.

 

[beaujolais]

Chrono: --- with strong blue fluoro...but it was too small ... barely broke the 1 ct mark ... real antique cut OMC that happened to be very well cut, good enough for GOG to offer a lifetime warranty/upgrade on it. ---

That would have been too small for your tastes. A lifetime upgrade for a real antique is quite a compliment.

One day . . . we will get a very strong/strong blue.

---

Nkarma:

An August cushion in a Leon. Oh.How.Wonderful.

A K is nice for those who want a basically white stone. I'm a lover of lowered color stones, too. The stone in my avitar is a P. I'll trade you my K color for your fluorescence?

When you get your stone back, play with it outside in the sun some and see if it gives any light blue/lavender tones. The fluoro is helping it be whiter, anyway, which it sounds like you'd like.

When I first moved to Calif, I lived in Healdsburg which was wonderful. Then we moved to Dana Point. Now, I'm back in NY. SF is fantastic!

When in Sonoma, you may want to visit the Chalk Hill winery. It's owned by an older, brilliant lawyer. Their wines are quite expensive but very nice. Their property is incredible. You can look them up on Google. (I'm not sure if PS would want me to post a link, so I'm not.)

Thanks so very much & have a great trip. Looking forward to photos of your masterpiece, too.

 

[Hest88]

I knew there was some reason I liked that one better! Hee!