opinions needed on 2 RB ASET images

[dazed]

Dear fellow PS's, since I decided to take the next step in life a few months ago I've been lurking on this forum trying to soak in all the information I can about diamonds. Thanks to all of you guys I've learned a lot, but I'm still somewhat a newbie at this point. I've been working with a PS vendor who's been very helpful, and so far I've choosen 2 round brilliant diamonds for consideration. Both are the same color and clarity and almost the same carat weight and price. The specs from the GIA certificates are pasted below with some numbers from the Sarin report showing unrounded values:

Stone #1

GIA triple Excellent
Table: 56.5%
Total Depth: 61.1%
Crown Angle: 35.1
Pavilion Angle: 40.6
Crown Height: 15.4%
Pavilion Depth: 42.6%
Girdle: Thin to Medium
Star: 50%
LGF: 80%


Stone #2

GIA triple Excellent
Table: 57.7%
Total Depth: 61.0%
Crown Angle: 34.5
Pavilion Angle: 40.9
Crown Height: 14.6%
Pavilion Depth: 43.0%
Girdle: Medium
Star: 50%
LGF: 80%


The ASET images are attached below. They are taken on different dates so the camera setting may not exactly be the same. Both show some "paddling" or darkness at the arrow tips, with stone #1 looking more severe. What causes this, and how does it affect the performance of the stone? Which one would show more overall brilliance and fire? Stone #2 has a borderline-ideal 58% table, is that something I should be concerned about?

The vendor tells me that neither of these is a H&A stone, but as long as it sparkles like crazy I'm okay with it

Any and all opinions/critiques/nitpicks on each stone are much appreciated!

-dazed

 

[dazed]

Stone #1

 

[dazed]

Stone #2

 

[stone-cold11]

Do you have the IS image?

 

[dazed]

Yes I have the IS images. The IS image for stone #2 looks more asymmetrical compared to its ASET image, I''m thinking it may be due to tilt during photography. Or is it?

Thanks,

-dazed

 

[dazed]

Stone #1 IS

 

[dazed]

Stone #2 IS

 

[stone-cold11]

Prefers the #2 slightly better based on the numbes. IS images show no leakages but I think is taken too close to the stone and there is a tilt for #2.

 

[Lorelei]

ASET 2 is the best one, I can''t see enough from the IS images to judge.

 

[Laila619]

The paddling effect in stone one is probably the result of a bit of obstruction, given the 40.6 pavilion angle and the 42.6% pavilion depth. I prefer stone 2.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I like 2 better too.

 

[dazed]

Thanks everyone. Number 2 was my initial pick also after seeing both ASET images, but I''m not really liking the 58% table... maybe because of all the readings on this forum about people preferring smaller tables. Would stone #2 have less fire?

-dazed

 

[jet2ks]

58% table is fine. You will still get good fire because the other proportions work well together.

 

[dazed]

Thanks for the reassurance on the table size jet2ks.

For some reason the vendor thinks stone #1 is a better performing stone. I'm inclined to think that he is talking about the "value" instead, since the 2 stones are essentially the same price but stone #1 has only 1 cloud on the table (VS1) while stone #2 has 1 cloud on the table, 1 needle off to the side, 2 feathers and 1 indented natural on the girdle (also VS1), and has a slightly bigger table that some people may not like.

Can anyone think of a reason to NOT choose stone #2? What's that big triangular-shaped dark area next to one of the arrow shafts in the ASET image? Obstruction? Leakage?

I'm feeling a little overwhelmed from looking at all sorts of images and numbers on numerous stones in the past month, sometimes I think maybe I should reject both of these stones and just fork out a little more money to get either a BN signature ideal, WF ACA, James Allen H&A, or a GOG diamond...

-dazed