Help me choose between these 2 princess cuts please

[anukiginger]

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

 

[stone-cold11]

#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]

#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]

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]

Oops. Did not notice it was a 2 page pdf. Still #2.

 

[anukiginger]

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 Please give me more details, why you all chose .97 AGS stone? Thanks a million!

 

[slg47]

the 0.97 is actually larger. 5.57 x 5.53 vs 5.50 x 5.29.

 

[anukiginger]

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]

yep, the carat size is just weight but does not necessarily reflect the dimensions. in this case the 0.97 is actually larger!

 

[anukiginger]

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]

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]

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.