Opinions on 2.32 and 2.49 ct RB stones - GIA #'s included

[bieser23]

Good Afternoon -

I have been doing my research and wanted to get the opinions of the group on the following two stones:

2141115644
11948773

Thanks!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Opinions on 2.32 and 2.49 ct RB stones - GIA #'s include

Helping make this easier for the next person:

https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=11948773&weight=2.32

https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2141115644&weight=2.49

I do not like the shallow crown on the 2.32 at all. So of these two, I would choose the 2.49 although it has a depth greater than 62.3% which is my normal limit. The deeper the stone, the more it can reduce the face-up diameter. I don't have time to look up other 2.5 ct stones to compare diameter, but it probably isn't too far off. (checked and diameter is fine)

 

[Christina...]

Re: Opinions on 2.32 and 2.49 ct RB stones - GIA #'s include

Thanks for the links DS! I'm not an expert and people like diamondseeker have much more experience than I do, but I don't like the crown or pavillion angles on the first stone either. Can you get idealscope images of the second stone?

 

[bieser23]

Re: Opinions on 2.32 and 2.49 ct RB stones - GIA #'s include

Thanks! Appreciate it - will try to get it tomorrow - any other thoughts? Is the table on the 2.49 too narrow?