help me choose

[zeroin]

After researching the forums, I need help deciding on a diamond. I have never thought about buying diamonds online until I visited this site. Diamond #1 is several hundred dollars less than Diamond #2. I am leaning towards Diamond 1. I havn''t seen many reviews for icestore, but Ariel seems nice. WF has great customer service, but a little pricier.

I basically want at least a 1ct colorless and eye clean diamond. Prefer ex cut, polish, and symm. I have a budget about $7000 for the diamond.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Diamond #1 Icestore
Round Brilliant
Measurements: 6.46 - 6.48 x 3.98 mm
Carat Weight: 1.01 carat
Color Grade: F
Clarity Grade: VS2
Cut Grade: Excellent
Proportions:
Depth: 61.5%
Table: 55%
Crown Angle: 34.5°
Crown Height: 15.0%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Pavilion Depth: 43.0%
Star length: 50%
Lower Half: 75%
Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick, Faceted (3.5%)
Culet: None
Finish:
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: None
Comments: Additional clouds are not shown.


Diamond #2 Whiteflash ACA H&A Item Code: AGS-9977602
Report Type: Diamond Qualityâ„¢ Document
Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 6.55 - 6.56 x 4.02 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Color Grade: AGS 0 (D)
Clarity Grade: AGS 5 (SI1)
Carat Weight 1.048
Fluorescence: Negligible
Comments: "9977602" has been inscribed on the girdle of this diamond.
Additional clouds are not shown.
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Table: 55.5%
Crown Angle: 34.7
Crown Height: 15.5%
Girdle: Faceted, 1.2% to 3.5%
Pavilion Angle: 40.7
Pavilion Depth: 42.9%
Star Length: 51%
Lower Girdle Length: 77%
Total Depth: 61.3%
Culet: Pointed

 

[stone-cold11]

#1 stone looks good by the numbers. IS image will confirm if it is good.

#2 ACA is good, among the top cuts available. Nothing wrong with the numbers. Can you post the IS image? Most likely will be good, have yet to see a bad ACA IS.

 

[zeroin]

I attached the IS for diamond #2. I don''t have an IS for diamond #1. Should I ask for one?

 

[zeroin]

Sorry, this is the correct IS for diamond #2.

 

[Siamese Kitty]

zeroin-

I looked at the D 1.048 and was told there was a barely visible, but noticeable if you knew where to look, inclusion under the table. You may want to double-check and compare it against your standard of "eye clean".

Good luck with your search!

 

[zeroin]

that''s interesting since WF emailed and said the diamond was "Completely eyeclean from 3-5 & 8-10 inches from the top view with 20/20 vision as well as from the side at 10"

I may stick with the first one and have someone appraise it. It is tough buying online, doing emails, and making the phone calls, while not letting the gf find out about the ring.

I appreciate the help from the forum.

 

[Siamese Kitty]

Date: 5/21/2009 11:57:35 PM
Author: zeroin
that''s interesting since WF emailed and said the diamond was ''Completely eyeclean from 3-5 & 8-10 inches from the top view with 20/20 vision as well as from the side at 10''

I may stick with the first one and have someone appraise it. It is tough buying online, doing emails, and making the phone calls, while not letting the gf find out about the ring.

I appreciate the help from the forum.

Hmm. Yes, that IS interesting....

If you do decide to pursue this stone, which if eye clean should be amazing, you may just want to double check to be sure. FYI, it was James who told me it wasn''t. (He did mention he was being picky.)

I agree that the numbers on the first stone look good, too.