Help with choosing overall "sparkliest fire" diamond

[Inbloom]

Hi, I've been looking to get a better stone with my limited budget ($1400), and I'm happy with .4-.5ct range. My original was GIA 3X but scored a 2.3 on HCA (I bought it before I found out about the tool). It's not as sparkly as I wanted (most of the fire was around the perimeter in sunlight and not all over the diamond). The specs are: .41ct/F/SI1/$934, depth: 62.5%, Table: 56%, Crown: 35%, pavilion: 41%.

I'm looking at these contenders:

#1.
Price: $1,375, eyeclean

#2. Specs: .491ct/F/SI2(Rep said eyeclean from 8in)/$1,280 Depth: 62.2%, Table: 55.9%, Crown: 34.8%, and Pavilion: 40.8%
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.49-carat-f-color-si2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-430825


So I like how the .491 is bigger and less expensive and still Ideal. I am fine with the inclusions as long as eyeclean. But What do you think? Will the sparkle/fire (which I'm most interested in) be comparable between these two, or a big difference? Both of them are better than my original probably right?

Thank you in advance!

 

[Dancing Fire]

I love #1 based on its proportions...

 

[JoshuaNiamehr]

An ultimate 3 grade on the Sarine Light Report gets you the sparkliest and liveliest diamond with perfect light symmetry.

Also do note, both of those ASET's are computer generated.

 

[Inbloom]

An ultimate 3 grade on the Sarine Light Report gets you the sparkliest and liveliest diamond with perfect light symmetry.

Also do note, both of those ASET's are computer generated.

Hi,

I'm having the .49 inspected by a gemologist, but I'm curious, what kind of impact on the ASET does being computer-generated make? Is it less accurate?

Thank you!

 

[JulieN]

I prefer #2

 

[JoshuaNiamehr]

An ultimate 3 grade on the Sarine Light Report gets you the sparkliest and liveliest diamond with perfect light symmetry.

Also do note, both of those ASET's are computer generated.

Hi,

I'm having the .49 inspected by a gemologist, but I'm curious, what kind of impact on the ASET does being computer-generated make? Is it less accurate?

Thank you!

Yes its based on theory, not a real life capture or measurement. So you dont know how YOUR diamond will actually perform. Unless you take a real ASET read/scan/photo on the diamond.

 

[Inbloom]

I prefer #2

Hi JulieN,

Could you please explain for what reasons you prefer #2? That would help me out with my decision.

Thanks!

 

[JulieN]

Bigger, less expensive, looks very nice in the video. The risk is small but ask about durability, si2 inclusions may be problematic

 

[akoya]

An ultimate 3 grade on the Sarine Light Report gets you the sparkliest and liveliest diamond with perfect light symmetry.

Also do note, both of those ASET's are computer generated.

Hi,

I'm having the .49 inspected by a gemologist, but I'm curious, what kind of impact on the ASET does being computer-generated make? Is it less accurate?

Thank you!

Yes its based on theory, not a real life capture or measurement. So you dont know how YOUR diamond will actually perform. Unless you take a real ASET read/scan/photo on the diamond.

hijack the thread for a while... lol

so if there's pics frm vendors vs the ags certificate, i should b looking at vendor pics instead of ags?
i find the ags pics easier to see (the area after the most inner circle)... the area where the arrows r joining... shows more things than vendor pics.. so i am looking at wrong information?

 

[Inbloom]

Hi All,

Thanks for your help so far. I have one more option. It's also S12, and compared to the other one, the Gemologist actually says it's cleaner than the .491, even though the videos show the opposite. They're comparable in fire and brilliance according to the gemologist. I know the following one has higher depth, but do the rest of the angles balance each other out? What do you think?

Thank you!

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.49-carat-f-color-si2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-430796

 

[enbcfsobe]

Hi -- maybe I missed something from an earlier post, but on your budget have you considered dropping one or two grades on color? If it is a question of availability, maybe waiting until after valentines day when there might be more stock in would open up your options? though these both look quite nice to me

 

[Inbloom]

Hi There,

I ended up getting the .491ct and I've noticed at certain angles there appears this big dark spot in the middle of the diamond. It appears usually in low light (morning light, dusk, yellow incandescent bulb etc) situations and when the stone is rotated toward me. I've heard of head obstruction and in some case It's probably that, but do you think it also has to do with the depth of the stone (62.2%), or not enough light is getting to the middle, or is this something all diamonds do? The example I attached is when there's bright daylight and my head didn't seem to be the way, so what's your take? I'm trying to decide to keep or return.

Thanks for all your input!

Specs: 62.2%, Table: 55.9%, Crown: 34.8%, and Pavilion: 40.8%

 

[KobiD]

Easy way to check for head obstruction is to move it back to an arms length away and view. Does the darkness disappear. Or get a white piece of paper and make a small hole to view through and inspect from there.

What I think you are seeing is simply the colour contrast of the pavilion mains (arrows), and being that it is a smaller stone they can appear closer together, so darker to the naked eye.

 

[KobiD]

How did you go?

 

[Inbloom]

Hi KobiD, thank you for your suggestions. I tried the paper trick, and in many of the situations I described the dark spot did go away. Although in low lighting situations it still seems the edges light up but the center stays dark. But I think it's just not enough light to penetrate to the deeper areas of the diamond, so I'm ok with that since it seems most diamonds would do that anyway right? Overall I feel better about my choice. My concern was whether the dark area was due to the deepness of the stone, in which case I could look for one that was not as deep. But if this is normal, then I won't worry (too much) about it. Thanks for your help again!