How is this strategy???

[peekay]

 

[Ellen]

I can''t get anything for the 2.42.

However, you''re on the right track. Take them both, with her, to an independent appraiser. Listen to what he has to say, and then let her pick. I think that''s a fabulous idea!

And let us know what you end up with!

 

[peekay]

Pic of the WF 2.42.

 

[peekay]

...

 

[peekay]

So what do you guys think?

 

[Ellen]

Honestly? No. I don't like the angle combo, and the IS and pic are showing why. It's leaky. More so than I like to see.

If it were for me, I'd pass.

 

[peekay]

Thanks Ellen. This should prove to be interesting. WF just emailed me saying that they looked at both side by side. They said: the "Vendor diamond (2.42) has a little bit better scintillation (sparkle associated with movement) then the expert selection diamond. The ES diamond does face up a little whiter than the vendor diamond. He said that there is no visual difference in the size of these two diamonds."

This is particularly interesting to me bc the 2.16 has better stats across the board. The 2.42 got a 3.6 on the HCA and the 2.16 a 1.2.

We''ll find out very shortly. I''ll have her wear both and take a side-by-side with my macro lens. Thanks for all your help.

 

[Ellen]

It will definitely be interesting!

Be sure and take them on lots of "field trips". You want to get them in as many lighting situations as possible, to see how they perform across the board.

Do a search on here for "scintillation", "fire", and "what lighting do diamonds look best in". You''ll get lots of good suggestions on where to test them out.

I''ll be waiting to hear how it goes. Good luck.

 

[:)]

I have to agree c/ Ellen that the 2.42 is leakier than I would like to see. I also am very curious to see what you think when you get them side by side! Please keep us posted!

 

[peekay]

well, I picked up the rings this morning. Both are very beautiful. However, they didn''t label them so it''s impossible to know which one is which with 100% certainty. They are sending me to an appraiser to verify it.

However, I did notice that one of them had a bit more scintillation and brilliance than the other. In light of WF''s observations, I''m going to guess that this one is the 2.42. It also appears to be just a tiny tiny tiny bit bigger. I really couldn''t tell the difference until one of my co-workers saw the difference and pointed it out to me. Now I "think" I can see a difference in size. Also, in certain angles, it appears to me that the smaller one is a tad bit whiter.

To be honest, I almost wished I went for one with a tiny inclusion. I am scared to death of getting it cleaned since it can be so easily changed out and I couldn''t tell the difference.

This is all very fascinating to me since almost everyone, including myself, universally believed the 2.16 was going to be nicer as it had really great numbers. The 2.42 is also about $300 less expensive. Even then, the difference, to a lay person like myself, is not that great. Certainly not great enough to justify extra $$$. I think the lesson I learned is to not get too caught up in the numbers, especially for an amateur like myself.

 

[Ellen]

Very interesting so far Peekay!

How''s the comparison going? any changes in opinion? are you getting them out under lots of different light situations?



And have I asked enough questions??!

 

[peekay]

well, she said "yes" yesterday. As for the rock, she liked (loved) the bigger one. I like the bigger one too, now I get to buy myself a $300 present with the price difference! Truth be told, both looked great and would have been fine. In the end, the size plus the scintillation of the 2.42 outweighed the slight color advantage of the 2.16. I''m going to be returning 2.16 to WF. Thank you all for your help, especially Ellen. You guys made this an interesting purchase and I''m glad I learned a few things along the way....

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/19/2007 6:11:22 PM
Author: peekay
well, she said ''yes'' yesterday. As for the rock, she liked (loved) the bigger one. I like the bigger one too, now I get to buy myself a $300 present with the price difference! Truth be told, both looked great and would have been fine. In the end, the size plus the scintillation of the 2.42 outweighed the slight color advantage of the 2.16. I''m going to be returning 2.16 to WF. Thank you all for your help, especially Ellen. You guys made this an interesting purchase and I''m glad I learned a few things along the way....

Well, this has been a very interesting outcome. Whoda thunk it?? Please post hand pics if you can, we''d love to see it!

Congrats peekay!

And you are very welcome.

 

[Mara]

how funny i just saw this thread...!!

i think i saw in person the 2.28 J SI2 that you were considering, it was amazingly beautiful, and it did not have any visible inclusions in regular viewing. but sounds like you found the right stone in the 2.42 regardless of what the #'s would have said. congrats!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Congratulations! I think most girls who are not on PS would choose size over the difference in cut. We are just cut nuts around here! We need pictures, please!