Input on choosing between these 2 RB''s?

[uwphysmed]

The following #''s come from their GIA certs (Oct 09) - these are wholesale, so no imaging available yet. I am leaning towards #2 as it has a few fewer inclusions (on both all marks are under crown facets, none under table), and the table itself is smaller on the 2nd. Opinions?

Stone #1:
1.25 ct
6.92 x 6.93 x 4.25mm
H
VS2
Cut: Ex
Polish: Ex
Symm: Ex
Fluor: None
Table: 57%
Depth: 61.4%
Crown: 15%
Pavillion: 43%
Girdle: 3.5% (medium, faceted)
Crown angle: 34.5
Pav angle: 40.8

HCA = 1.3

Stone #2:
1.26 ct
6.94 x 6.96 x 4.27mm
H
VS2
Cut: Ex
Polish: Ex
Symm: Ex
Fluor: None
Table: 56%
Depth: 61.4%
Crown: 15%
Pavillion: 43%
Girdle: 3.5% (medium, faceted)
Crown angle: 35
Pav angle: 40.8

HCA = 1.5

 

[stone-cold11]

Both look good from the numbers, my preference being #1.

Can you get the star and lower half numbers?

Also, can the vendor supply you with IS/ASET image?

 

[jet2ks]

Both have potential by the numbers. Don''t rely on the inclusion plot to determine whether a stone will be eye-clean (though at VS2, both should be).

 

[uwphysmed]

Star/Lower Half are:

#1: 50/75
#2: 55/75

I still don''t know how to factor those numbers into understanding light return! Thanks for the input so far - I''m unlikely to get any imaging until it goes for appraisal, still trying to decide on where to send that as well...

 

[stone-cold11]

ok, the stars and lower half are just normal, nothing strange. So, if only going just by the numbers and have to choose one, I would go for #1.

 

[uwphysmed]

And what is the motivation for choosing the bigger table in this case? I''m super green at this, but since everything else is basically identical I''d figgured the small table was the go-to choice here?

 

[stone-cold11]

57% table is not that large.

The #1 combination is safer because of the rounding of numbers by GIA, 0.5 degrees for the crown and 0.2 degrees for the pavilion. So if the average numbers were rounded down to 40.8, for #2 stone, and that there are large variations in the numbers between facets, some facets'' angle combination might result in leakage. Just playing it safe.

 

[Lorelei]

The first diamond would be my choice, also a 57% table is well within desirable range.