Looking for your input on possible engagement rings!

[AdamG]

I am starting a new post after posting this in another thread so I can get more members' input. Anyone with advice feel free to chime in!

@Garry H (Cut Nut), I find your tool very fascinating and appreciate your insights into the cuts of diamonds. Based on your experience, which of the below do you think would make for the best engagement ring? (Note it will be a simple 4-prong setting on a knife-edge platinum band with no halo or smaller crystals. The lady is a ring size 6.5.)

2.01 ct I SI1 (HCA score of 0.7 - big). GIA cert with dimensions. See attachment for photo of ASET.
2.02 ct I SI1 (HCA score of 1.6 - average). GIA cert with dimensions.
2.23 ct G SI1 (HCA score of 1.3 - average). GIA cert with dimensions.

I've seen the 2.01 ct and 2.23 ct in person but it's not possible to see them next to each other so it's difficult to tell which is better (both are eye clean). I have only seen the 2.02 ct online. I only have an ASET image for the 2.01 ct at this time. I'm having a tough time coming to a decision and would very much value your opinion/advice. I understand you also cannot see the diamonds at all but am looking for your opinion based on the dimensions and info provided.

Best,
Adam

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The ASET on 2.01 is very nice.
But the I will show color.
The G is helped by the fluoro and those inclusions should not cause and deleterious Fluoro effects. So in good light it will look like an F or E.
The extra spear is a bonus. If you can compare them side by side by buying the 2.23 and taking it to side by side in various lighting we would love to hear about it. But no direct sunlight (ever) for cut assessments.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

BTW retailers and dealers find it hard to sell twinned diamonds because of the ugly plots. Many times they have no impact and look stunning IMHO

 

[AdamG]

Hi Garry, thanks so much for your reply. What is the "extra spear" you are referencing?

Thank you!
Adam

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

oops - Spread not Spear

 

[sledge]

I prefer the proportions and color of the 2.23 G. Are they all the same price?

We all have different color sensitivities. Some like warmth, and others don't. No one answer is right or better than the other. In our case, I bought my wife an H and would prefer better color as we occasionally see minor tint from time to time and both prefer colorless stones.

My concern with the G is obviously making sure it's eye clean, and also the medium fluor. Sometimes fluor can make a stone hazy, cloudy or milky looking. While I think medium is a low risk, I feel it's good precaution on your behalf to examine for flaws and be pleasantly surprised there are no issues vs the other way around. When examining be sure to inspect in direct and indirect sunlight both. Also, I am curious if the whisps may have an effect on the fluor.

My wife's stone has medium fluor. I don't see vast color improvements as Garry describes. But the issue is more complicated than that. You have to account for the intensity of the UV/VV light that hits the stone, and then the fluor intensity as well. Obviously different environments provide an array of different results.

My school of thought is simple -- buy the color you can live with and be pleasantly surprised if and when you get any color gain. Again, better to expect a G and buy as such then expect an F and buying a G with fluor to counter balance.

Lastly, because of the medium fluor the stone should trade for a slight discount vs G SI1 stones with none or faint fluor.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

My wife's stone has medium fluor. I don't see vast color improvements as Garry describes. But the issue is more complicated than that. You have to account for the intensity of the UV/VV light that hits the stone, and then the fluor intensity as well. Obviously different environments provide an array of different results.

The better the light to see color in the more bleaching / whitening effect from fluorescence.
This is the type of effect you could expect to see with str blue fluorescence in a diamond graded by GIA after 2000:

 

[AdamG]

This is all very helpful you guys. I'm so glad I found this forum.

I'd probably like to stay G or above, but will keep the 2.01 ct I SI1 in the conversation for now. I'd like to add a couple more potential stones to the mix from a friend of mine who works in the industry up in SF.

Here are my options, with pricing being quoted to me:

Option 1) 2.11 ct F SI1 (HCA score of 1.7 - average). GIA cert with dimensions. Price being quoted is $22,250.


Option 2) 2.10 ct G VS2 (HCA score of 1.6 - big). GIA cert with dimensions. Price being quoted is $24,250.


Option 3) 2.01 ct I SI1 (HCA score of 0.7 - big). GIA cert with dimensions. Price being quoted is $15,850.


Option 4) 2.23 ct G SI1 (HCA score of 1.3 - average). GIA cert with dimensions. (Same as previously mentioned above - no ASET available). Price being quoted is $23k.

From looking at the ASET images of Option 1 vs Option 2, Option 2 I believe has the better symmetry and overall light performance (which is surprising to me is that I thought Option 1 has the better dimensions on paper), although I'm not sure how much of a difference this will create when viewing the diamond in person. I plan on seeing them both in person, but I prefer to make less emotional decisions, which is why I really do enjoy this forum.

Any further advice/suggestions as I continue my quest to find the right stone for the right price is appreciated.

Best,
Adam

 

[Texas Leaguer]

It is a disservice to consumers for any trade member to state categorically that you should expect an H color to look like an F color because of strong blue fluorescence. Or that an H color will look like a G color except in a poorly lit room.

@sledge has given more appropriate advice on that matter.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It is a disservice to consumers for any trade member to state categorically that you should expect an H color to look like an F color because of strong blue fluorescence. Or that an H color will look like a G color except in a poorly lit room.

@sledge has given more appropriate advice on that matter.

Prove your statement Bryan

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Prove your statement Bryan

GIA Study 1997

It is apparent that the Average Observers were not able to consistently discriminate any fluorescence-related effects in the viewing environments most similar to those in which jewelry is purchased and worn.

GIA Study 2013

Observation of fluorescence can be affected by three main factors: (1) the nature of the emission from the UV light source; (2) the nature of the defect(s) responsible for the fluorescence; and (3) methodology, including the viewing geometry and the distance from the radiation source.

Finally, the distance between the radiation source and the diamond as well as the stone’s orientation (table-down versus face-up) may produce noticeably different fluorescence by changing the amount of excitation energy that interacts with the diamond.

 

[AdamG]

Guys, while I appreciate you both arguing this point, it's taking away from the point of this thread which is to help me evaluate the best choice of engagement ring. Can I receive some feedback on the ASET images provided and the dimensions of the diamonds to help come up with a decision?

Thank you!
Adam

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

All the cuts look great.
I do not like lower colors and the cloud in i might be an issue.
Most stones with twinning sell at a discount because the report looks scary and most have no bad effects. GIA grade with backlight ad twinning looks bad but can rarely be seen face up in a setting and in my experiance has little impact if any on transparency