Help me pick a diamond! Urgent!

[66sixtysix]

Hello

Which of these diamonds will look bigger from the top and whitest?


#1 Diamond - 1.21 ct I color VVS2 Princess -Good Cut - $4,072

. Report: GIA
. Shape: Princess
. Carat: 1.21
. Depth %: 77.3
. Table %: 62
. Girdle: - Slightly thick to thick
. Measurements: 5.72 x 5.72 x 4.42 mm
. Polish: Excellent
. Symmetry: Good
. Culet: None
. Fluorescence: None

#2 Diamond - 1.20 ct I color VS2 Princess -Very Good Cut - $4,156

. Report: GIA
. Shape: Princess
. Carat: 1.20
. Depth %: 72.8
. Table %: 69
. Girdle: - Slightly thick to thick
. Measurements: 5.80 x 5.77 x 4.20 mm
. Polish: Good
. Symmetry: Good
. Culet: None
. Fluorescence: None

 

[stone-cold11]

can''t pick, need at least an IS/ASET image for fancy shape.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

How about even a picture of the stone? As far as size goes, you look at the measurements..the one that is 5.80 x 5.77 is a tiny bit larger than the one that is 5.72 x 5.72mm. But you really can''t choose a princess by the numbers, unless it is an AGS Ideal cut princess. I''d take my chances on one of those.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/28/2009 6:08:32 PM
Author:66sixtysix
Hello

Which of these diamonds will look bigger from the top and whitest?


#1 Diamond - 1.21 ct I color VVS2 Princess -Good Cut - $4,072

. Report: GIA
. Shape: Princess
. Carat: 1.21
. Depth %: 77.3
. Table %: 62
. Girdle: - Slightly thick to thick
. Measurements: 5.72 x 5.72 x 4.42 mm
. Polish: Excellent
. Symmetry: Good
. Culet: None
. Fluorescence: None

#2 Diamond - 1.20 ct I color VS2 Princess -Very Good Cut - $4,156

. Report: GIA
. Shape: Princess
. Carat: 1.20
. Depth %: 72.8
. Table %: 69
. Girdle: - Slightly thick to thick
. Measurements: 5.80 x 5.77 x 4.20 mm
. Polish: Good
. Symmetry: Good
. Culet: None
. Fluorescence: None

Welcome!

There isn''t much in it for physical diameters but I need photographs and preferably ASET images in order to help, can you request them from the vendor? You may know you can drop to VS clarity as the other diamond rather than VVS without visual sacrifice but this is a personal preference!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/29/2009 6:10:47 AM
Author: Lorelei

Welcome!

There isn''t much in it for physical diameters but I need photographs and preferably ASET images in order to help, can you request them from the vendor? You may know you can drop to VS clarity as the other diamond rather than VVS without visual sacrifice but this is a personal preference!

Agreed. Also, the cut is what makes the diamond bright and sparkly. Therefore, I''d shoot for at least Very Good symmetry.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

All the above posters have given you great advice. Make sure that you get some pictures of both diamonds, preferably ASET, since the cut-quality will determine how the stone sparkles, returns light and hides colour.

Your question as to which looks bigger with these two examples is funny though. Recently, there was a big argument here between experts as to how too many immediately say that a bigger depth-percentage results in a smaller face-up surface. In your examples, the surface-areas are almost the same, but the depth-percentages vary seriously. It is a great example about how wrong this old-world-thinking of some regulars here is.

I do wonder who gave you these cut-grades of Good for #1 and Very Good for #2. One cannot determine these based upon the numbers available.

Live long,

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:51:51 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
All the above posters have given you great advice. Make sure that you get some pictures of both diamonds, preferably ASET, since the cut-quality will determine how the stone sparkles, returns light and hides colour.

Your question as to which looks bigger with these two examples is funny though. Recently, there was a big argument here between experts as to how too many immediately say that a bigger depth-percentage results in a smaller face-up surface. In your examples, the surface-areas are almost the same, but the depth-percentages vary seriously. It is a great example about how wrong this old-world-thinking of some regulars here is.

I do wonder who gave you these cut-grades of Good for #1 and Very Good for #2. One cannot determine these based upon the numbers available.

Live long,

Excellent point Paul!