shape
carat
color
clarity

Help me choose between these 2 princess cuts please

anukiginger

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
8
OK, I've posted before, and looked and looked and looked some more, but I think I've narrowed it down to these 2. Please look at the attached files and help me make a decision. What do you think - .97 or 1.01?

.97 costs almost $4,000 and $1.01 costs $3500
 

Attachments

  • .97.pdf
    814.4 KB · Views: 46
  • 1.01 final.pdf
    1 MB · Views: 67

stone-cold11

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
14,083
#2. #1 do not have enough infor to judge the cut performance by except that it is off square, unless you are specifically looking for an off square stone.
 

slg47

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
9,667
Stone-cold11|1304545257|2912362 said:
#2. #1 do not have enough infor to judge the cut performance by except that it is off square, unless you are specifically looking for an off square stone.

ASET is posted for both?

I would go with 2.
 

jstarfireb

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
6,232
Definitely the 0.97 based on the ASETs.

SC, look at the last page of the pdf, where you can see the ASETs. I think you'll still agree.
 

stone-cold11

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
14,083
Oops. Did not notice it was a 2 page pdf. Still #2.
 

anukiginger

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
8
Thank you all for your responses. Do you think the AGS stone justifies the $500 price difference, even though the other stone is larger? Could you please give me a little bit more detail as to why .97 is a better stone, other than it's graded by AGS and cut parameters are readily available. Based on both ASET pictures, at least to me, the 1.01 GIA stone isn't a bad deal either. It's slightly rectangular, but barely noticeable on the photo. I'm really so conflicted :roll: Please give me more details, why you all chose .97 AGS stone? Thanks a million!
 

slg47

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
9,667
the 0.97 is actually larger. 5.57 x 5.53 vs 5.50 x 5.29.
 

anukiginger

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
8
I'm floored by that. I had no idea that could be possible if the carat sizes are the other way around. That's why I love this forum and it's extremely helpful contributors - thank you!
 

slg47

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
9,667
yep, the carat size is just weight but does not necessarily reflect the dimensions. in this case the 0.97 is actually larger!
 

anukiginger

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
8
Could you please tell me, had I not posted the .97 stone, how would you rate 1.01 stone by itself? I'm attracted to its lower price, it'll give me room for a nice setting too. Is it still a nice stone in your opinion?
 

Dreamer_D

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
25,247
I think even if I saw the GIA stone in its own I would not be a fan of the depth and the table size, both of which are bigger than the .97 as you can see.

The trouble with interpreting ASETs is that, as you can see, it is more art than science and error creeps in with the photography. That's why I really like opting for AGS stones that have a cut grade consistently assigned by a reputable lab. I think if you saw these two stones in person, you would think the AGS looked better. Worth the $500 to me.
 

Amys Bling

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
11,025
slg47|1304559896|2912617 said:
yep, the carat size is just weight but does not necessarily reflect the dimensions. in this case the 0.97 is actually larger!


Exactly this- you can have stones of different carat weights but if a stone is cut deeply the actual face-up size will be smaller! You need to check the dimensions of the stone as well as cut when determing the cut and faceup size.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top