Last minute (and probably unrealistic) Request for Advice

[boneil04]

Although this is my first post, I've spent a great deal of time in this forum. If I've learned anything, it's that a princess cut's performance is often difficult to predict with numbers. Unfortunately for me, I wasn't born with a distinguishing eye. Frankly, the vast majority of stones look nearly the same to me. For example, one Cartier rep wanted to demonstrate the superiority of an E v G, laid two stones in front of me, and said I bet you can guess which stone was graded E. She lost.

So, I'm planning to purchase Monday (for a Saturday proposal). I have two stones reserved and cannot decide between them. Again, I realize numbers are only so useful, but I thought that for the first time I should ask you good folks to chime in before I cross the finish line. Here are the two stones, both are solataire princess cuts and eye clean. I suppose if there was one specific question I'd throw out there, it is whether the combination either stone's pavilion/crown angles raise a flag, red or green. But, any advice/observations/etc will be very much appreciated.

1) 1.57 c - G - SI1
Depth % - 71.7
Table % - 68
Crown height % - 12.8
Crown ang - 36.5
Pavilion Depth % - 55.8
Pavilion ang - 38.1
Girdle - medium to slightly thick
Symmetry - VG
Polish - Ex

2) 1.51 c - G - SI1
Depth % - 70.8
Table % - 69
Crown height % - 9.2
Crown ang - 27.3
Pavilion depth % - 59.7
Pavilion ang - 39.5
Girdle - thin to medium
Symmetry - VG
Polish - Ex

 

[04diamond<3]

Re: Last minute (and probably unrealistic) Request for Advic

I'm leaning towards diamond 1 but do you have the mm's on both?

 

[boneil04]

Re: Last minute (and probably unrealistic) Request for Advic

whoops, meant to include -

stone 1: 6.41 x 6.25 x 4.48

stone 2: 6.57 x 6.31 x 4.47

 

[04diamond<3]

Re: Last minute (and probably unrealistic) Request for Advic

whoops, meant to include -

stone 1: 6.41 x 6.25 x 4.48

stone 2: 6.57 x 6.31 x 4.47

That's interesting. It's really hard to tell though on a princess cut stone. Do you have pictures? The mm info helps because even though the 1.57 is a bigger carat weight, the 1.51 will look bigger...unless you have those flipped around? Can you post pictures or links to the stones?

 

[boneil04]

Re: Last minute (and probably unrealistic) Request for Advic

Unfortunately no pictures, but those are the correct dimensions. I was also thrown off a bit by the weight v dimension comparison. The 1.51 looks *slightly* larger face up, but not so much larger as to make surface area an important criteria.

 

[tyty333]

Re: Last minute (and probably unrealistic) Request for Advic

Can you take someone with you that has a little more decerning taste? We cant really tell much/anything from the numbers.

 

[Christina...]

Re: Last minute (and probably unrealistic) Request for Advic

The depth and combo crown and pav angles is causing the 1.51 to face up larger. You're correct that purchasing fancy cuts by the numbers is impossible. If I was forced to do so I would look for a Princess graded ideal by AGS. Are you determined to purchase from Cartier? Without seeing photos my choice would be for the first stone.

you may find this helpful though...https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/princess-cut-diamond

 

[bunnycat]

Re: Last minute (and probably unrealistic) Request for Advic

I don't have anything to say about princess cut stones but would second Christina's recommendation to read a little about them.

The color of the stone doesn't have anything to do with the way a stone sparkles but that's all that store reps seem to sell on, but the quality of cut does and for that reason I would also recommend looking at AGS Ideal graded stones.

 

[boneil04]

Re: Last minute (and probably unrealistic) Request for Advic

The depth and combo crown and pav angles is causing the 1.51 to face up larger. You're correct that purchasing fancy cuts by the numbers is impossible. If I was forced to do so I would look for a Princess graded ideal by AGS. Are you determined to purchase from Cartier? Without seeing photos my choice would be for the first stone.

you may find this helpful though...https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/princess-cut-diamond

Thanks for the link. According to that chart, which I have seen before, stone one is superior based on its larger crown height percentage and slightly lower table percentage; however, I have seen discussions on this forum disputing the value of those guidlines.

The rings aren't from Cartier. I didn't care for the 1895. The rings are from Tiffany's, and I am fully aware that I'm overpaying. But I'm ok with that.

 

[JulieN]

Re: Last minute (and probably unrealistic) Request for Advic

If you really cannot see any difference between them, I'd take the 1.57: smaller table, higher crown, more square. And I had no idea T&Co carried SI1 for engagement rings.