Interpreting differences in these two diamonds

[RIONE]

We viewed these two diamonds in various lighting situations. In the end my girlfriend and I preferred the first over the second as it seemed to have greater brightness and sparkle to it. However, it seems as though the diamond we preferred would be considered to be on the shallow end of the excellent cut grade whereas the diamond that we passed on had numbers that were more in the middle of this category. I am looking for opinions as to why the shallower diamond (Diamond #1) was more attractive and appealing to us than the one we passed on (Diamond #2). We love the diamond, but were wondering why we chose this diamond over what would be considered (on paper) a more popular choice (Diamond #2),.

Here are the stats:

Diamond #1:

Round Brilliant
GIA Cert
Measurements: 6.88-6.91 x 4.20mm
Carat Weight: 1.24
Color: I
Clarity: VS2
Cut Grade: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: Faint

Proportions:

Table: 59%
Crown Angle: 34.0
Pavilion Angle: 40.6
Girdle: Medium - Slightly Thick
Culet: None
Crown Height: 14.0%
Pavilion Depth: 43.0%
Total Depth: 60.9%
Star Length: 55%
Lower Half: 75%

Diamond #2:

Round Brilliant
GIA Cert
Measurements: 6.82-6.85 x 4.24mm
Carat Weight: 1.21
Color: I
Clarity: VS2
Cut Grade: Excellent
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: None

Proportions:

Table: 56%
Crown Angle: 35.0
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Girdle: Medium
Culet: None
Crown Height: 15.5%
Pavilion Depth: 43.0%
Total Depth: 62.0%
Star Length: 50%
Lower Half: 75%

 

[strmrdr]

what types of lighting did you compare them in?

The gia rounding of the numbers leave a lot of room for guesswork but the first favors brightness over fire compared to the second.

 

[RIONE]

We looked at the diamonds under diffused lighting (i.e. on a sunny day but indoors through an open window), spotlighting with a little L.E.D. light the jeweler had, and in a regular office lighting situation. We also viewed the stones though an idealscope and there didnt seem to be any light leakage in either stone, but for a reason I cannot expalin the more shallow diamond''s idealscope image also seemed more appealing to me (I don’t have a copy of these images). This preference may be attributable to the symmetry grading differences between the two stones as #1 was excellent and #2 was very good...just my take though.

 

[RIONE]

Also, as far as rounding goes we had a sarin report done for stone #1 (the stone we chose) and the pavilion angle was close to 40.7. The exact number is 40.67. I dont know if this is relevant.

 

[stone-cold11]

Is that a full sarin report or a average report?

 

[RIONE]

Full Sarin I belive.

 

[RIONE]

Date: 7/6/2009 6:52:13 PM
Author: strmrdr
what types of lighting did you compare them in?

The gia rounding of the numbers leave a lot of room for guesswork but the first favors brightness over fire compared to the second.

I understand that this stone (stone #1) will be more bright than fiery which is why I think my gf and I perfered it, but does it mean that it will have poor fire?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/6/2009 9:07:18 PM
Author: RIONE

Date: 7/6/2009 6:52:13 PM
Author: strmrdr
what types of lighting did you compare them in?

The gia rounding of the numbers leave a lot of room for guesswork but the first favors brightness over fire compared to the second.

I understand that this stone (stone #1) will be more bright than fiery which is why I think my gf and I perfered it, but does it mean that it will have poor fire?

It should still show some fire, just that the proportions mean it could favour brightness more - can''t say exactly without seeing the stone but this is what the proportions suggest.

 

[RIONE]

Can somebody comment on Diamond #2 (the one we passed up)? Would this be considered a GIA excellent steep/deep? Because, from what I understand, diamonds on the shallow end of the GIA excellent spectrum are usually very beautiful stones whereas stones on the deeper end of this respective category have been described as not worthy of their excellent distinction. Maybe this has something to do with the discrepancy that we saw in the two stones.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/7/2009 10:42:34 AM
Author: RIONE
Can somebody comment on Diamond #2 (the one we passed up)? Would this be considered a GIA excellent steep/deep? Because, from what I understand, diamonds on the shallow end of the GIA excellent spectrum are usually very beautiful stones whereas stones on the deeper end of this respective category have been described as not worthy of their excellent distinction. Maybe this has something to do with the discrepancy that we saw in the two stones.

Diamond#2 is borderline steep deep, this is more complicated due to forced GIA rounding, this stone is on the cliff edge - it could leak or be perfectly fine depending on which direction the numbers are rounded in.

 

[DiamondFlame]

I don't know much about RB proportions but why might diamond 2 be considered 'superior' (according to OP)? I mean if no. 1 is brighter and no. 2 has more fire, why shd no. 2 be better (on paper)?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi All!
RIONE- Personally, I feel that what you are seeing that you prefer, in the first stone is the more open top.
The table, at 59% , as compared to the second stone, at 56% table- will make the stone brighter, in my experience.
Of course words like "brighter" " more fire" or "Sparkle" are all subjective terms- each of us perceives things in our own way.
The best, most descriptive words I have are that the larger table somehow makes the stone brighter, while the smaller table may make it more "fiery"

The smaller tables are favored by many who do use the numbers to analyze stones as it''s though to be closer to Near Tolk, or "Ideal" cut.
My feeling is that if we look at stones, instead of measurements, many people would have the same preference as you.

 

[RIONE]

Date: 7/7/2009 3:05:46 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Hi All!
RIONE- Personally, I feel that what you are seeing that you prefer, in the first stone is the more open top.
The table, at 59% , as compared to the second stone, at 56% table- will make the stone brighter, in my experience.
Of course words like ''brighter'' '' more fire'' or ''Sparkle'' are all subjective terms- each of us perceives things in our own way.
The best, most descriptive words I have are that the larger table somehow makes the stone brighter, while the smaller table may make it more ''fiery''

The smaller tables are favored by many who do use the numbers to analyze stones as it''s though to be closer to Near Tolk, or ''Ideal'' cut.
My feeling is that if we look at stones, instead of measurements, many people would have the same preference as you.

Rockdiamond - I think you are right about the table size. Even though the 59% table size is not "ideal", my girlfriend and I must prefer this when the other proportions complement it. I am just so concerned with picking the perfect stone, and on paper the stone #2 has better proportions. However, in the end you have to trust your eyes because it is what you see that is most important, and in everyday life numbers are invisible.
Thanks All.