Help! ANOTHER asscher decision/Different poster.....

[jenwill]

Man- seems to be the question of the week- which asscher to choose. I have narrowed it down to these 2 choices:

1.22
GIA
D
VS2
67.5% depth
57.9% table
15.7% crown height
44.8% crown angle
49.6% pavilion depth
55.4% pavilion angle
m girdle
no culet
ex symmetry
ex polish
mb flour
6.09*6.09*4.1
$7088


OR

1.19
GIA
F
VS1
68% depth
62.1% table
16.8% crown height
48.2% pavilion depth
stk-tk girdle
no culet
vg Symmetry
ex Polish
no flouro
5. 92*5.89*3.98
$7147

I have both on hold, and am deciding whether to have Whiteflash call them in for review there, or have them sent to an appraiser locally (btw- if anyone can recommend a good appraiser int eh sf bay area/silicon valley I would appreciate it!).

I am leaning toward having Whiteflash call them in and have Brian look at it- I trust his eyes based on what others here have said. If they pass his muster then move on to looking at them in person myself.

Any input from others is appreciated. I know I could move down in color, but am extremely color sensistive as i am an ultrasound tech and spend my days differentiating between hundreds of shades of gray and yellow- wouldn''t you just know that that particular skill so valued in my work life would work against me when looking at diamonds!

 

[jenwill]

I will post the sarins when I get home as I cannot post them from work.......

 

[strmrdr]

The first has slightly better numbers.
Id have wf call them in and get you a sarin and indirect light pictures.
By the numbers the first is slightly better but the second isnt that far out that it cant be awesome.

If the pics and sarin look good on both then bring them both in for you to compare.
Odds of both of them being awesome are pretty slim but hopefully one of them is.
I dont recomend spending the extra having them sent localy untill someone eyeballs them and gets a sarin and pictures.
Way too many of them are not well cut at all even if they have good numbers.

 

[sciencegeek]

I agree with strm (big surprise, the man knows his stuff!). I like the smaller table on the first one, and I think the fluor is a positive attribute. One of my favorite things is tilting my E/medium blue in the sun to see if I can make it turn bluish purple. It''s awesome

 

[jenwill]

Thanks to both of you for your input....this is hard for me.,..and I know what I wnt! I cannot imagine what would be going on if FH were in charge of this!?!?!?!

RE: medium flouro...I am excited about that if it is the stone i choose. I think it would be neat to have something that is not 'per usual', and that so many (uninformed B&M salespeople and random buyers who have been told by said sellers) feel is a negative attribute. Works for me! Keeps the price per carat down....win/win!

 

[Art Nouveau]

I agree the first stone looks better on paper, but as the others already mentioned, you can''t tell if an Asscher is good without looking at it. If you wish to have the stones sent to SF Bay area, have you considered The Diamond Broker in Los Altos, CA. Their link is below:
http://www.diamondbroker.com/

 

[sciencegeek]

Regarding appraisals in the Bay Area, my fiance went someplace in Walnut Creek. It''s wasn''t far because we live in SF and he works in San Rafael, but I seem to remember you live in Palo Alto so it might be a bit of a trek for you. If you''re still interested, PM me.

 

[kanne]

jenwill-
Morning! See both stones in person and check them out under both artifical and natural lighting. The MB flourescence is really a personal preference. Some people like it and some don''t. It is my understanding that flourescence in a stone is not trendy right now, although GIA and other jewlers I have talked to say it can be a real plus. There are misc issues about strong flourescence and murkiness..but in your case that info is N/A. If the trend for non flourescence is driving the prices down on stones with flourescence, then go for it! Personally I could give a rat''s a$$ about what is trendy and what is not. If you love it then buy it!!

 

[jenwill]

Pictures, IdealScope images and sarins on the 2 choices:

#1

 

[jenwill]

#2

 

[jenwill]

Side by side #1 on left #2 on right:

 

[jenwill]

Idealscope #1:

 

[jenwill]

Idealscope #2:

 

[jenwill]

Sarin #1:

 

[jenwill]

Sarin #2:

 

[jenwill]

So, after all of that I am SERIOUSLY leaning toward #1. I am going to call Brian right now to talk about them, but would appreciate any input from the crowd!

 

[aschman]

i like the look of #1 a lot more. it looks more clean, crisp, and vibrant. i also like the steps in that diamond a lot more, just much more in line with eachother than those of #2. GOOD LUCK!!
matt

 

[strmrdr]

#1
Not perfect but close

#2
yuck

 

[Kaleigh]

I agree #1. How are you going to set it?

 

[valeria101]

I think these would really look like the picture in low difuse light (cloudy day, of dim light reflected by a wall...) - the worst possible look of a diamond! No brilliance, no fire, just white and black contast. There is no way to make them look more dull than that picture, I think. And the picture looks pretty nice, no ?

#2 is probably a brighter stone (as much red but less black on Iscope and in the picture), but #1 has shape going for it which is saying allot for an asscher. Meaning ? I vote for #1 too for what that''s woth

 

[sciencegeek]

#1 #1 #1

great shape.

 

[blueroses]

#1!!!!


It has that "asscher-y" shape. Love it!

#2 doesn''t have the 10-mile deep look, plus looks kinda murky?

 

[jenwill]

Thanks for the input everyone! It just helped cement what was already my gut feeling. After talking to Brian, I have every confidence that that is the one for me! Now to get it set.......

 

[mia1967]

I''m late chiming in here, but as a proud new owner of an asscher of my own - I make sure to read all of the asscher posts. I think stone #1 is beautiful!! That one got my vote too

Congratulations!