Input on these 3ct rounds

[ted9000]

Thoughts?

Round 3.08 H SI1 EX EX EX GIA N 61.1% 58% 9.35-9.40x5.73 - 34% 41%
Round 3.07 G SI1 EX EX EX GIA N 61.4% 55% 9.32-9.40x5.75 - 34% 40.8%

 

[atroop711]

the 1st scored a 1.5 HCA and
Light Return Excellent
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Very Good
Spread Very Good

the 2nd scored 1 on HCA and

Light Return Excellent
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Excellent
Spread Very Good


they both look good to me but I'm sure someone with lots of experience will chime in. Can't wait to see what you choose

I would suggest asking the vendors if they are EYE CLEAN.

 

[ted9000]

For additional reference the GIA report numbers are 16361698 and 2105499583.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

From the specs you gave, I''d choose #2. However, the SI1 grade is going to be a factor in a 3 ct. stone. The visibility factor would be of major importance to me. I''d want to know if the inclusions are eye visible from the sides or top of the stone.

 

[ted9000]

Supposedly eye clean on both according to the vendor.

 

[stone-cold11]

#2 gets my vote then.

 

[atroop711]

Date: 3/25/2009 7:04:49 PM
Author: ted9000
Supposedly eye clean on both according to the vendor.

well if they are both eye clean..then I would go for #2 because of the HCA (3 excellent)

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/25/2009 7:04:49 PM
Author: ted9000
Supposedly eye clean on both according to the vendor.

Can you get ASET or Idealscope images Ted if these diamonds are from an online vendor?

 

[Phoenix]

Based on the specs above, I vote for choice #2.

 

[Ellen]

I''m in the #2 camp.

 

[megeve]

Ditto, or thritto lol! #2 for me too!

 

[ted9000]

Ill get the pics. The #2 stone does show more inclusions on the GIA report than the #1 stone.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/26/2009 11:04:29 AM
Author: ted9000
Ill get the pics. The #2 stone does show more inclusions on the GIA report than the #1 stone.

That would be very helpful Ted.