Needed some help on 2 stones asap!

[steveinnyc]

Hi - Thanks in advance for any help again. Money not being the main criteria, I''m choosing between the following stones and would like the bigger one, but which do you think is best? I think the second one but not sure, I''m new at this. Thanks again!

1.6ct
excellent cut, polish, sym
color: F
SI1 - feather closer to the edge, two clouds in the table (couldn''t see them either)
girdle: medium to slightly thick
Depth: 62%
Table: 57%
crown angle: 34.5
pavilion angle: 41
culet: none
florescence: none
HCA: 2 - X within the green and right on the white line
lgf% 80%

2.0ct
very good cut, excellent polish & sym
color: F
SI1 - feather closer to the edge, small (<1mm?) feather in the middle of table (but actually not on the table), can barely see with 10x
girdle: slightly thick to thick
Depth: 60.8%
Table: 58%
crown angle: 32.5
pavilion angle: 40.8
culet: none
florescence: none
HCA: 1 - but X is outside green and white outlines, but in the more redish area
lgf% 80%

 

[Ellen]

Out of those 2 I''d pick the first. But with the C/P angles, it''s iffy, for me.

 

[Allison D.]

You didn''t mention if either of these stones carry grading reports and, if so, by which lab(s)? Do you have that info?

I ask because they are listed as ''excellent'' and ''very good'' cut, but that may be more a vendor vernacular and not a grading report assessment.

What are your priorities? Which things would you sacrifice over others? That might help.

Based strictly on what you listed, I''d probably personally prefer #1, but I''d really want to see them before making decisions.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ditto to Ellen and Allison...probably #1. But I''d like to know what lab graded them.

 

[steveinnyc]

Date: 4/29/2008 7:04:01 PM
Author: Allison D.
You didn''t mention if either of these stones carry grading reports and, if so, by which lab(s)? Do you have that info?

I ask because they are listed as ''excellent'' and ''very good'' cut, but that may be more a vendor vernacular and not a grading report assessment.

What are your priorities? Which things would you sacrifice over others? That might help.

Based strictly on what you listed, I''d probably personally prefer #1, but I''d really want to see them before making decisions.

Thanks for your help. They are both graded by GIA. I''ve been looking for a while and after seeing many stones (including ones that are set), my priorities have become brialliance/sparkle and size. I know that sounds very superficial and novice, but I agree with many posts on here where you just can''t see certain inclusions with my eye (and I barely see some when I view through 10x), so it''s not worth paying for. So I would sacrifice color and clarity for cut and carat.

That being said, these two have the trade off of cut and carat (although the 2 ct. has a better cut advisor number I believe). So if I don''t have to give up much brilliance for a noticeably larger size I''m willing to take it. Any thoughts? Thanks again for your help!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/30/2008 9:05:49 AM
Author: steveinnyc
Thanks for your help. They are both graded by GIA. I''ve been looking for a while and after seeing many stones (including ones that are set), my priorities have become brialliance/sparkle and size. I know that sounds very superficial and novice, but I agree with many posts on here where you just can''t see certain inclusions with my eye (and I barely see some when I view through 10x), so it''s not worth paying for. So I would sacrifice color and clarity for cut and carat.

That being said, these two have the trade off of cut and carat (although the 2 ct. has a better cut advisor number I believe). So if I don''t have to give up much brilliance for a noticeably larger size I''m willing to take it. Any thoughts? Thanks again for your help!

Ok. If cut is more important, and I think it should be too, the smaller one has more potential.

Ideally, for a great cut diamond, you want the x to land in the overlap area of AGS/GIA. The smaller stone is on AGS border, the larger is outside both boxes. It has a fairly low crown angle, which will most liklely cause it to give off more white light return, and not as much fire. It may also have a more glassy appearance. The larger may be hiding some of its weight in the (slightly thick to thick) girdle also. So you could be paying for the 2 ct mark, but it''s not facing up like one. I don''t know for sure though, as we don''t have the diameter numbers.

The other diamond is more equally balanced. However, GIA rounds their numbers, so we aren''t positive what either of these truly are. But based on what we do know, I would still recommend the smaller of these two.

 

[steveinnyc]

Date: 4/30/2008 9:42:42 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 4/30/2008 9:05:49 AM
Author: steveinnyc
Thanks for your help. They are both graded by GIA. I''ve been looking for a while and after seeing many stones (including ones that are set), my priorities have become brialliance/sparkle and size. I know that sounds very superficial and novice, but I agree with many posts on here where you just can''t see certain inclusions with my eye (and I barely see some when I view through 10x), so it''s not worth paying for. So I would sacrifice color and clarity for cut and carat.

That being said, these two have the trade off of cut and carat (although the 2 ct. has a better cut advisor number I believe). So if I don''t have to give up much brilliance for a noticeably larger size I''m willing to take it. Any thoughts? Thanks again for your help!

Ok. If cut is more important, and I think it should be too, the smaller one has more potential.

Ideally, for a great cut diamond, you want the x to land in the overlap area of AGS/GIA. The smaller stone is on AGS border, the larger is outside both boxes. It has a fairly low crown angle, which will most liklely cause it to give off more white light return, and not as much fire. It may also have a more glassy appearance. The larger may be hiding some of its weight in the (slightly thick to thick) girdle also. So you could be paying for the 2 ct mark, but it''s not facing up like one. I don''t know for sure though, as we don''t have the diameter numbers.

The other diamond is more equally balanced. However, GIA rounds their numbers, so we aren''t positive what either of these truly are. But based on what we do know, I would still recommend the smaller of these two.

Great thank you! so you wouldn''t trade the size difference for the potential loss in brilliance?

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/30/2008 10:40:28 AM
Author: steveinnyc

Great thank you! so you wouldn't trade the size difference for the potential loss in brilliance?

Never. A well cut smaller stone will truly outshine a not so hot stone.

And you're welcome!