Help me choose between 3 RBs

[dpm9h]

I''ll be buying an engagement ring very soon and now I''m deciding between three RBs for the center stone. I am hoping that the experts on PS can use the information I''ll be providing here to advise me on which of these diamonds is the best choice. I''m particularly interested in hearing about which diamond appears to have the best cut and greatest light performance judging from the proportions and ASET/IdealScope images.

All diamonds are roughly the same in price. #1 and #2 are currently the favorites, and it seems that #3 was either put on hold for or sold to another customer as of today. I''m leaving #3 in the comparison, however, as it is at least a good frame of reference for the other two diamonds.

Diamond #1:
GIA Certificate
Weight- 1.65 cts
Cut- Excellent
Polish- Very Good
Symmetry- Excellent
Color- K (acceptable color to both me and my fiancee. We may set this stone in a custom setting with sidestones to match the center stone''s color more closely and reduce contrast between the stones)
Clarity- SI1
Fluoresence- None
Table- 57%
Depth- 60.2%
Crown- 33.5 degrees
Pavilion- 41.2 degrees
Girdle- Thin to Medium
Culet- None

Diamond #2:
AGS Certificate
Weight- 1.616 cts
Cut- Excellent
Polish- Very Good
Symmetry- Ideal
Color- J
Clarity- SI2 (visually inspected w/ virtual loupe to my and my fiancee''s satisfaction)
Fluoresence- Negligible
Table- 55.4%
Depth- 62.6%
Crown- 35.5 degrees
Pavilion- 40.9 degrees
Girdle- Thin to Medium
Culet- Pointed

Sarin Report
VG
Weight 1.606 ct
Diameter 7.465mm 7.45mm - 7.48mm 0.4%
Depth 62.6% VG
Table 56% VG
Crown 35.5 degrees VG
Pavilion 40.9 degrees VG
Culet 0.8% Small
Girdle 1.35% - 2.14%

Diamond #3:
GIA Certificate
Weight- 1.55 cts
Cut- Excellent
Polish- Excellent
Symmetry- Very Good
Color- I
Clarity- I1 (visually inspected w/ virtual loupe, fiancee is slightly concerned over some feather inclusions)
Fluoresence- None
Table- 56%
Depth- 62.3%
Crown- 34.5 degrees
Pavilion- 41.0 degrees
Girdle- Thin to Slightly Thick
Culet- None

Sarin Report
VG
Weight 1.547 ct
Diameter 7.4mm 7.38mm - 7.42mm 0.5%
Depth 62.2% VG
Table 56% VG
Crown 34.5 degrees VG
Pavilion 41 degrees VG
Culet 0.7% Small
Girdle 1.49% - 2.57%

(I''ll be posting images below)

How do these three diamonds measure up? Is there anything about them that should concern me? Is there any diamond that sticks out as being superior or inferior to the others? Let me know if there is any other information I can provide that would be helpful in evaluating these diamonds

I''ll be providing updates on the purchasing process and I hope to get my fiancee her dream ring very soon.

 

[dpm9h]

Diamond #1 ASET

 

[dpm9h]

Diamond #1 IS

 

[dpm9h]

Diamond #2 IS

 

[dpm9h]

Diamond #3 IS

 

[stone-cold11]

What is the lower girdle facet number for #2? Looks remarkable good IS considering the angles it has.

I would prefer #2 from the images and numbers.

 

[dpm9h]

Date: 8/26/2009 7:41:08 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
What is the lower girdle facet number for #2? Looks remarkable good IS considering the angles it has.


I would prefer #2 from the images and numbers.

Thanks Stone-cold. Pardon my ignorance, but what is the lower girdle facet number and how might I find out what it is for that diamond?

I also was pleasantly surprised by #2''s IS after seeing that it scored only a 3.3 on the HCA (the lowest of the bunch).

Can you tell me specifically what it is about #2 that makes it your preference? Any particular IS features or numbers that make it stand out? It would be helpful in making my decision and also I''d like to know for my own curiosity and understanding of light performance.

 

[stone-cold11]

It would be a number written on the diamond diagram, below the girdle on one of the facet. The number is usually from the 70s to the 80s, I am guessing this stone should be in the low to mid 80s.

Or you could simply do a report check on the stone with the report number and the exact weight of the stone as shown on the report using this link. http://www.agslab.com/verify_diamond_grading_report.php.

 

[dpm9h]

I see what you''re talking about. The lower girdle facet number is 79 for #2. I''ve read a lot of stuff about diamonds and cut but I haven''t even heard this number or term being thrown around. Can anyone tell me a little bit about what it means? I notice that this is provided on AGS reports, but I don''t think I''ve seen it on GIA report before.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 8/26/2009 8:04:56 PM
Author: dpm9h
Can you tell me specifically what it is about #2 that makes it your preference? Any particular IS features or numbers that make it stand out? It would be helpful in making my decision and also I''d like to know for my own curiosity and understanding of light performance.

I like the high crown, small table combination. And although this pavilion seems high, there is no leakage probably indicating the cutter has some skill and the stone has good optical symm.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 8/26/2009 8:14:41 PM
Author: dpm9h
I see what you''re talking about. The lower girdle facet number is 79 for #2. I''ve read a lot of stuff about diamonds and cut but I haven''t even heard this number or term being thrown around. Can anyone tell me a little bit about what it means? I notice that this is provided on AGS reports, but I don''t think I''ve seen it on GIA report before.

It is also in the GIA report. Look closely...

If you look at the IS, the leakage, if it occurs, is always in these facets and the main pavilions are the dark arrows. So given that the arrows are not leaking light but these facets are, it follows that if these facets are closer in angles to the pavilion mains, by being larger, there will be less likely to have leakage.

 

[dpm9h]

Date: 8/26/2009 8:16:01 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

I like the high crown, small table combination. And although this pavilion seems high, there is no leakage probably indicating the cutter has some skill and the stone has good optical symm.

Interesting. Is there something about high crown/small table that is desirable? It sounds like it might be a recipe for greater fire. I agree on the optical symmetry, #2 seems to be excellent in the regard. To my eyes, it looked like #2 had slightly greater symmetry than #1 but just slightly more light leakage (although looks like not enough to cause a problem). Would you say you are substantially more impressed with diamond #2 than diamond #1, or is it close? I thought #1 had good specs and images as well, but haven't heard anything about it yet.

Date: 8/26/2009 8:22:01 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
It is also in the GIA report. Look closely...


If you look at the IS, the leakage, if it occurs, is always in these facets and the main pavilions are the dark arrows. So given that the arrows are not leaking light but these facets are, it follows that if these facets are closer in angles to the pavilion mains, by being larger, there will be less likely to have leakage.

Alright, I see now it's in the GIA report just in a different place. I always wondered what that number was... This is exactly the kind of expertise that I lack and was hoping to find here.

I'd love to hear thoughts from some other users if anyone else reads this thread and has an opinion.

 

[stone-cold11]

Better fire potential for small table high crown.

 

[Lorelei]

Hi dpm

Number 1 looks ok, are you sure a K colour is ok with you? Make sure you have a good return policy in case it is too warm, might not be but best to see in person.

The second diamond is too deep for me, you can start losing face up size with that depth which you don't want, this one is facing up more like a 1.5 ct. The image looks good but I would look for one with less depth personally.

The third shows a tiny amount of leakage which might not be perceptible in real life, what I will do is wait for the images for the last diamond when you get them then we can go from there.

 

[dpm9h]

Date: 8/27/2009 3:41:17 AM
Author: Lorelei
Hi dpm


Number 1 looks ok, are you sure a K colour is ok with you? Make sure you have a good return policy in case it is too warm, might not be but best to see in person.


The second diamond is too deep for me, you can start losing face up size with that depth which you don''t want, this one is facing up more like a 1.5 ct. The image looks good but I would look for one with less depth personally.


The third shows a tiny amount of leakage which might not be perceptible in real life, what I will do is wait for the images for the last diamond when you get them then we can go from there.

Yes, K is fine. These are the only images I have or will be getting, and right now these three diamonds are the only ones I''m strongly considering. In fact, the third diamond is still showing up as not available on the website, but I haven''t heard back yet from the vendor to see whether it is sold or just on hold.

I also noticed the difference in face-up size between diamonds #1 and #2. I forgot to list that diamond #1 has a diameter of 7.70 X 7.74 mm, about 4% larger than diamond #2 despite only being roughly 2.5% heavier. That''s definitely a factor in my decision, but I think that ultimately I would value noticeably greater fire and brilliance over a small increase in size.

 

[dpm9h]

Bump. I''d really like to get a few more opinions on these stones. My fiancee and I are still not sure which to go with!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/27/2009 1:36:04 PM
Author: dpm9h
Bump. I'd really like to get a few more opinions on these stones. My fiancee and I are still not sure which to go with!

I would go for 1 or 3 personally. The second diamond's image looks ok which is surprising considering the angles, but it is still too deep for my taste and it is facing up a bit small for the weight. If that doesn't bother you then fine but it will look more like a 1.5 ct.

 

[stone-cold11]

#2 for me, I don't mind the larger depth as it is almost a FIC, expected.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/27/2009 2:24:21 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
#2 for me, I don''t mind the larger depth as it is almost a FIC, expected.

Not with that pavilion angle, should be no more than 40.6 for a FIC.

 

[stone-cold11]

I said 'near FIC' right? With the IS image, I would bet it is as good as an FIC.

I would rather go with a good IS image stone but VG HCA score than a Ex HCA score but a slightly leaky IS image.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/27/2009 2:28:17 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
I said 'near FIC' right? With the IS image, I would bet it is as good as an FIC.

You said almost FIC which I took to mean that you thought it was very close to FIC with the proportions so also to me I wouldn't ' expect' the extra depth in this case as the pavilion is too steep for FIC. The image does look good however which is very unusual with those proportions.

With the other IS image I doubt that small bit of leakage would even be perceptible in reality, but of course everyone is entitled to their own preference.

 

[dpm9h]

I just got the good news that diamond #3 is still available and is now on hold for me for 24 hours.

My fiancee and I are looking for the best looking diamond out of the three, even if the numbers aren''t exactly ideal. A diamond with slightly off proportions that still sparkles with the best of them is just fine by us, and if that appears to be the case with #2 then that''s great. Even #1 is only a 2.3 on the HCA, not the 2.0 score or lower which is typically sought after, but to me it seems to have good optical symmetry and very little light leakage in the IS. That''s a major reason why I''m considering it so strongly.

 

[stone-cold11]

ya, personal preference.

Also, it is facing up small not mainly because of the steeper pavilion but the main reason being the higher crown. The increase in volume of the stone due to the slightly steeper pavilion is small, less than 1%.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/27/2009 2:51:40 PM
Author: dpm9h
I just got the good news that diamond #3 is still available and is now on hold for me for 24 hours.

My fiancee and I are looking for the best looking diamond out of the three, even if the numbers aren''t exactly ideal. A diamond with slightly off proportions that still sparkles with the best of them is just fine by us, and if that appears to be the case with #2 then that''s great. Even #1 is only a 2.3 on the HCA, not the 2.0 score or lower which is typically sought after, but to me it seems to have good optical symmetry and very little light leakage in the IS. That''s a major reason why I''m considering it so strongly.

It might be worth checking that image 2 belongs to that diamond, the image isn''t what I would expect with that proportion configuration, it is of course possible but most diamonds with similar angles bordering on what we call steep deep range will show distinct leakage. Doesn''t hurt to check. If you are stuck as to which to choose, ask for JA''s gemologist Julianna to inspect the diamonds and help you decide which is best for you, she will be able to tell you more about each.

 

[dpm9h]

Date: 8/27/2009 3:06:28 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/27/2009 2:51:40 PM

Author: dpm9h

I just got the good news that diamond #3 is still available and is now on hold for me for 24 hours.


My fiancee and I are looking for the best looking diamond out of the three, even if the numbers aren''t exactly ideal. A diamond with slightly off proportions that still sparkles with the best of them is just fine by us, and if that appears to be the case with #2 then that''s great. Even #1 is only a 2.3 on the HCA, not the 2.0 score or lower which is typically sought after, but to me it seems to have good optical symmetry and very little light leakage in the IS. That''s a major reason why I''m considering it so strongly.

It might be worth checking that image 2 belongs to that diamond, the image isn''t what I would expect with that proportion configuration, it is of course possible but most diamonds with similar angles bordering on what we call steep deep range will show distinct leakage. Doesn''t hurt to check. If you are stuck as to which to choose, ask for JA''s gemologist Julianna to inspect the diamonds and help you decide which is best for you, she will be able to tell you more about each.

I will do exactly that. I certainly haven''t switched up the IS images for any diamonds on my own, but I suppose it is possible that the vendor made a mistake when providing me with the images and I can certainly ask them to confirm. I''ll ask about Julianna at JA as well, that sounds like a great idea as #2 and #3 are from JA.

 

[stone-cold11]

Good luck.

 

[dpm9h]

I spoke with JA sales associate today about diamonds #2 and #3. He pointed out that the I1 clarity #3 has it''s inclusions on the outside of the diamond and said that it''d be possible to put these behind a prong. I hadn''t thought of that, but it makes me feel a lot better about purchasing an I1. I checked the image again and he was right, the table of the diamond appears completely clear and the only noticeable inclusions are on the very outsides of the diamond.

He also pointed out that diamond #2 has a slightly darker table, and acknowledged that the IS image for #3 might not look its best because of a slight amount of tilt.

I''m still torn over what to do, but one way or another my fiancee and I expect to make a decision on Monday.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/28/2009 4:13:58 PM
Author: dpm9h
I spoke with JA sales associate today about diamonds #2 and #3. He pointed out that the I1 clarity #3 has it''s inclusions on the outside of the diamond and said that it''d be possible to put these behind a prong. I hadn''t thought of that, but it makes me feel a lot better about purchasing an I1. I checked the image again and he was right, the table of the diamond appears completely clear and the only noticeable inclusions are on the very outsides of the diamond.

He also pointed out that diamond #2 has a slightly darker table, and acknowledged that the IS image for #3 might not look its best because of a slight amount of tilt.

I''m still torn over what to do, but one way or another my fiancee and I expect to make a decision on Monday.

Thats what I was wondering too, if you are comfortable with an I1 and the inclusions are prongable then to me thats fine as an I1 owner myself!

 

[dpm9h]

I purchased diamond #1. Read more about it if you'd like in my thread in the "show me the ring section" here https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/three-stone-1-65-k-si1-rb-engagement-ring.125640/. Pictures included!

 

[30yearsofdiamonds]

Not knowing the price per stone, I would go with the J-SI2.

Why? K is always more noticeable as a color difference from a J but an i is not, and an I1 is usually and money wise more substantial of a difference. Other then that there isn''t much else to chose from. Your "cut photos" shoe nothing of significance, trust me.