I am torn between 2.. Any Suggestions ?

[imcmole]

Hello All: I am interested in some feedback on these 2 GIA graded stones. All replies are appreciated.

1)
Round Brilliant
7.14 -7.16 x 4.38
1.36 carat
61.3
57
Thin to Med, Fac
None Cutlet
Excellent
Excellent
vvs2
g
no flour
$10,000
Sarin Report:
Diam: 7.15mm
Crown: 34.8 / 15%
Pavil: 41.0 / 43.7
Table: 4.06mm / 56.8 %
Cutlet: .4% Very Small
Girdle: 1.1%


2)Round Brilliant
7.10-7.12 x 4.43
1.40 carat
62.3
54%
Medium to thick, faceted
Very Small Cutlet
Excellent
Very Goog
vs1
g
no flour
$9422
Sarin:
Diam: 7.12mm
depth: 4.43mm / 62.2%
crown: 36.3 / 16%
pavil: 40.2 / 41.9%
table: 3.91mm / 55%
cutlet: .6%
girdle: 1.7

 

[robbe]

stone nr 1.




good luck, robbe

 

[pqcollectibles]

#1 has better proportions. #2 is hiding some weight in the deeper cut and thicker girdle.

For more informed opinions, you'd really need to post crown and pavillion angles. You might ask the Vendor for Sarin info.

 

[imcmole]

I have added Sarin report information above to help with your evaluations. Thx,

 

[chialea]

There are so many people looking for a Firey Ideal Cut, and then you turn up with one! From what I understand, stone #2 will be full of coloured light, really incredible. Stone #1 isn't at all bad, but probably isn't quite as well cut...

This is solely going off of the HCA Advisor, and you can plug the numbers in just as well as I can

 

[imcmole]

I got the same HCA results and am thrown off.. Diamond #1 meets all of the "Ideal" specs and has better symmetry, yet it scores lower on the HCA. Aside from the HCA results, it also has better clarity. At this point I am trying to justify the increased cost of Diamond #1. Any additional info is appreciated!

 

[chialea]

Have you seen them in person? If you like diamond #1 better, that's all the justification you need. If not, maybe you could get them both shipped to a local independent appraiser to look at both of them?

The difference in look will probably be that the first one will be more white light and the second more coloured... which you like is a matter of taste.

You're not going to see the extra clarity in stone #1, so you will be paying for emotional value there, not visible.

 

[quaeritur]

Since I'm one of those people so interested in FICs, I'm gonna have to place my vote for stone #2.

I'd love to be able to see these two side by side...

 

[diamonddoll]

Can you get Idealscope pics to give you some more info?

 

[hoorray]

Idealscope pics are a good idea. I like #2 for 2 reasons. I love fire in a diamond, and this should have lots. It may not be in today's AGS0 range, but their definition of top preforming diamonds will be changing in the near future. They know that today's static ranges don't really judge performance. The HCA helps you find potentially great stone outside of today's AGS0 range based on their combination of angles and how they work together.

I don't like paying for VVS clarity that you can't see, and you are doing that in #1.