OEC Comparison Help!

[Elska]

Thank you to everyone who helped me out on my other OEC post! I decided to ask Ilya for a comparison video of the stone I had selected, a stone recommended to me here, as well as one he had that had similar grades and carat size. All are GIA stones. I had reservations about the stone I had picked, because it is very deep, but in the video, it seems to have better light play than the others? Is my newbie eye missing something here? Any help is appreciated!
Video:

Here are the links to the diamonds (and their stats) in the order of the video:

9748 - the Pricescope recommended stone
https://www.etsy.com/listing/476053630/gia-certified-g-vs2-old-european-cut?ref=shop_home_active_6

8538 - the stone I picked out
https://www.etsy.com/listing/537772635/067-carat-gia-certified-i-color-vs2?ref=shop_home_active_35
Video showing diamond individually

9960 - the comparison stone
https://www.etsy.com/listing/524836762/065-carat-i-vs2-vintage-gia-certified?ref=shop_home_active_23

 

[Ariadne_Theia]

Honestly, none of them look bad. I think it's ultimately down to which "flavor" you like. OEC's come in so many different pattern types.

I like 9960 best but that's a flavor thing not a performance thing. You picked 8538 and liked it best in the video so I'd say, get that one.

 

[Snowdrop13]

The bottom one has an "extremely thin" girdle- I'm no expert but does that not mean it needs great care with choice of setting? The second one also has a very thin girdle plus a chip listed as a clarity characteristic.

 

[LLJsmom]

I like the floral faceting of 9960. With an extremely thin girdle I would consider some kind of bezel setting.

 

[Elska]

I agree that 9960 is a lovely stone and it was a very close second, but like you guys mentioned, that extremely thin girdle is a bit worrisome to me. Any thoughts on the 9748 stone?

 

[foxinsox]

Like Ariadne says above, they all look good. The thing with OECs is that even tho they're the cut that became the MRB which is your poster child for being able to choose good stones using the right numbers, they're actually more fancy cuts where simple numbers like depth don't always tell you the full story and what your eyes like is more important.
In the video, I like the brightness of 8538 a lot. I also like the petals under the table of both of the others - they seem to show up more than for 8538.
So you've got a lovely choice of three nice looking stones - your preference is key here tho!
How are you planning to set it?

 

[alene]

The one you picked looks the brightest to me too. It's also visibly smaller. I find the setting for the top stone really distracting, makes it harder to focus on the stone, but agree that the other two look good too.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

The one you chose appears to have better light return and less contrast zones. It's a matter of preference when choosing an OEC on which appeals to you more. I prefer the stone you chose.

 

[Elska]

Thank you! I was hoping to set it in a cathedral 6 prong setting. When I brought up the very/extremely thin girdle concern with Ilya, he said that all the stones could definitely be set in prongs and that the issue isn't the girdle, it is making sure the person who sets it is a qualified diamond setter. But...that seems seems different than what I've been reading on here.

 

[Elska]

Quick update: My boyfriend and I have officially decided on 8538 and sent Ilya a message with our decision

A question I wanted to ask regarding insurance, since I'm a little confused based on past threads - Since GIA labeled the stone as a round brilliant, what's the best way to go about making sure that the stone is insured as an OEC? Making the stone duel certified by sending it to a different lab? Appraisal? Should I wait until the full ring is complete? Ilya offers both in-house and 3rd party GIA Graduate Gemologist appraisals, but I know it's smarter to find your own appraiser (boyfriend lives in Denver).