Help Me Choose

[NDSWMR]

I have narrowed down my choices to the following. Please give me your insight.

1.18ct, VS2, G, Depth: 61.1%, Table 56%, Crown Angle 34.6, Pavilion Angle 40.6, Florescence faint, Price $8,199

1.39ct, VS2, G, Depth: 61.4%, Table 57.4%, Crown Angle 36.0, Pavilion 40.7, Florescence none, Price $10,253

1.22ct, VS2, G, Depth: 62.3%, Table: 55.2%, Crown Angle 34.6, Pavilion 40.7, Florescence none, Price $9,280

I am also waiting to learn more about a 1.13ct G, SI1 and whether it is eye clean or now.

From the three above, which would you recommend?

Thank you.

 

[stone-cold11]

What are the star and lower half numbers? Girdle variation and also the diameter of the stone in mm.

 

[NDSWMR]

Diamond 1:
Star: 55%, Lower Half: 75%, Girdle: Medium, Faceted (3.5%), 6.77-6.84 x 4.16 mm

Diamond 2:
Star: 55%, Lower Half: 75%, Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted (3.0%), 7.17-7.20 x 4.40 mm

Diamond 3:
Star: 56%, Lower Half: 76%, Girdle: Faceted 1.6%-4.8%, 6.83-6.92 x 4.26 mm

 

[stone-cold11]

From the numbers, prefer #3.

Do you have IS/ASET images for these stones?

 

[NDSWMR]

I do not have the images for #1.

#2
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/5367/

#3
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6403/

Why do you prefer #3 when based on the numbers?

 

[stone-cold11]

Both 2 & 3 images looks good. I could go with either of them depending on priorities and budget.

 

[stone-cold11]

#2 has FIC proportion, some might not prefer it.

#1 has a slightly shallow pavilion angle for that crown, with that lower half, I would prefer to see an IS/ASET image before deciding.

#3 numbers are the safest of the 3.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/19/2009 7:29:55 PM
Author: NDSWMR
I do not have the images for #1.

#2
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/5367/

#3
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6403/

Why do you prefer #3 when based on the numbers?

Diamond 1 has definite potential but it would be best if you could get an IS image, the angles should not be an issue, I take it this diamond is AGS graded?

#2 is very nice, the images prove the proportions work well together, definitely worth consideration, it also falls just within fiery ideal cut range which means the diamond might show greater fire if the lighting is right.

#3 looks very good indeed and is a well balanced stone.

 

[NDSWMR]

Thank you both for your insight. The first diamond is actually GIA graded with report number 15072228. I tried attaching a photocopy of the report to this post. If I can''t get the IS image, is there any other way to tell the potential of #1?

Great news about #2 and #3. Looks like I may be on to something.

Thanks.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/20/2009 11:35:08 AM
Author: NDSWMR
Thank you both for your insight. The first diamond is actually GIA graded with report number 15072228. I tried attaching a photocopy of the report to this post. If I can't get the IS image, is there any other way to tell the potential of #1?

Great news about #2 and #3. Looks like I may be on to something.

Thanks.

Ask the vendor how it looks, there is a very small chance of obstruction ( where the stone darkens at close scrutiny) but this is probably not an issue, just something to be aware of with a 40.6 pavilion angle in any case. Ask the vendor how it looks to them if they have the stone in their possession.

The reason I asked if the diamond was AGS graded was due to the 34.6 crown angle, in fact as it is 34.5 as per GIA measurements as I suspected when you said it was in fact GIA graded.

http://www2.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=15072228&weight=1.18

Not that it makes much difference, here is the link for you.

 

[NDSWMR]

Thank you for clarifying and sorry about the mistake about the crown angle.

Does the fluorescence on diamond #1 pose any problems? I like the cost on diamond #1 and want to see if in fact I would be getting an inferior diamond compared to the others, thus justifying the higher cost.

Thanks.

 

[stone-cold11]

Fluorescence is a personal preference thing, some like it, some don't. Just a quirk in the trade that it is discounted.

For faint fluorescence, you will probably never see it in any normal viewing condition. Maybe in a dark room with only a UV light you will see a slight blue glow in the stone.

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/73/1/Blue-Fluorescence-in-Diamonds.aspx

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/20/2009 12:52:03 PM
Author: NDSWMR
Thank you for clarifying and sorry about the mistake about the crown angle.

Does the fluorescence on diamond #1 pose any problems? I like the cost on diamond #1 and want to see if in fact I would be getting an inferior diamond compared to the others, thus justifying the higher cost.

Thanks.

No problem!

And fluorescence isn''t an issue, with faint you probably would never even know it is there!

 

[NDSWMR]

Thank you both for the help. You have helped me narrow down the search.